Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 2

< 1 January	3 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries in 1707[edit]

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

These articles are, in my opinion, misconceived. This is truly a case for discussion - I'm not necessarily saying all of these should be deleted, and I'm at a loss as to what to do with these and seek advice.

First of all, Category:Lists of countries by year was created in 2007, and remains almost unpopulated. And if were populated, it would contain hundreds and hundreds of articles, many of which would repeat the same information. This doesn't seem right to me, and would constitute a maintenance nightmare.

Better might be a series of articles "List of countries 1700-1750", "...1750-1799", etc. Then you could start with the original list and only specify changes that occurred in 1701, 1702, etc. This would be a lot more managable. But for this, we might as well start from scratch. However, a series of merges may be in order. Herostratus (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are consideration are these:

It would be possible to treat these differently.

400 is quite separate, chronologically, from the others, and may stand alone, perhaps.
1707 and 1708 and 1783 and 1801 are very incomplete and some flags may be wrong.
1901 and later are more complete and probably more accurate. The question is, do we need articles for 1901 and 1902 and 1903 and...? Perhaps a merge is in order.

I'm willing to do a certain amount of the work of merging or whatever if this seems the way to go. Herostratus (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is already a much larger bunch of List of sovereign states in nnnn (see Category:Lists of sovereign states by year), by individual year until the 1950s, then by decade. IMO, these should be consolidated into decades at the least, and probably longer periods the further back you go. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In AfD terms, the simple answer is to redirect all "list of countries in xxxx" to the corresponding "list of sovereign states in xxxx". I wouldn't be too inflexible about doing it precisely by decade; the world wars, in particular, would complicate things a great deal. Need to find a system that carves world history at the joints.—S Marshall T/C 02:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If the intent is to establish what nations existed in any given year, it's been done so much better with the series in Lists of state leaders by year, one of the showpieces of what can be done on Wikipedia. For each of these, there's an existing article. The first named article is redundant to List of state leaders in 1707. Mandsford 02:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and incubate something - I do see some value in the concept of countries by year but the format is just woefully inadequate. No matter what "countries by xxxx date" we may try to come up with will be flawed, as there are periods of turmoil and relatively stable periods, but when you look at the details there are some changes almost every year, so no coarse or fine tuning of the date variable will adequately represent the countries in a given period with a minimum of unnecessary duplication. What I think might work is some kind of sortable table with all countries, with some sort of starting date and end date (when applicable) because it would avoid duplication and still convey some sort of timeline. Separate tables for non-sovereign entities could be made as well. Then for the WP:FLAGCRUFT people, there could be separate list articles for flag history issues.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete all - Most of these years are covered in a List of sovereign states in X article and the ones that aren't are too incomplete to be useful. As for the List of sovereign states in X pages themselves, they need to be consolidated into decades (or something), cleaned up, sourced, and expanded. But that's a reeeeally big task. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these are redundant to Category:Lists of sovereign states by year (the one for 400 is part of that category, the others aren't). The ones from 1901 onward definitely need to go. The ones before that (1707, 1708, 1783, 1801) can be renamed. I agree with 70.80 (who, unfortunately, didn't sign a name) that these articles are flagcruft and that the state leaders by year project is far more complete and accomplishes the same thing. Mandsford 13:57, 4 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. Tone 16:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Cizikas[edit]

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

Prod removed from page. Non-notable amateur ice hockey player who does not pass the notability guidelines established in WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Has not played in a fully professional league, has not won any OHL or CHL awards that otherwise determines his notability, and has not participated at the highest level of international hockey (the current World Junior team that he is on does not constitute the highest level of international hockey). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like stated, fails either notability guidline. Can be recreated if/when he turns pro or otherwise gains notability. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kaiser. -DJSasso (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail notability requirements. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The rugby/manslaughter thing got a fair amount of coverage, from major Canadian news sources, over about 2 years. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Youth Criminal Justice Act kept Mr. Cizikas' name from being associated with the story. Searching for "Castillo" (the victim) and "rugby" turns up quite a bit of stuff. There are some non-Canadian sources that do link Mr. Cizikas to the incident (including the interview with Mr. Cizikas linked in the article), but most of the coverage is unable to, legally. It may still count as BLP1E/NOTNEWS, but I thought it worth mentioning. » scoops “5x5„ 18:49, 3 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. CSD G12 HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echoes of Bourne Valley[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 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. Speedy delete G5 (but clearly fails ATH and GNG anyway) Black Kite (t) (c) 09:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sido Jombati[edit]

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

Contested PROD, no reason given. Footballer fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 22:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 22:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No clear evidence that he has played fully professionally, plus the shortage of reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 01:00, 3 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 Harbin Hot Springs, California. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harbinger Community[edit]

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

Unnotable and and unverified entity. Herostratus (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could have just had a redirect to the hot springs article, but here we are thanks to Herostratus and now we can thoroughly debate the matter. How helpful. Delete, redirect to Harbin Hot Springs, California. The community isn't really verifiable and certainly isn't notable, but Harbinger is a name associated with this place so this is a plausible redirect.[1] Fences&Windows 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not establish notability. Open to possible redirect. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless more sources can be found and added. Otherwise, redirect to Harbin Hot Springs, California and slightly expand the mention there of Harbinger. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge - It's difficult to say that the subject of the article meets WP:GNG, but it is part of Harbin Hot Springs as noted above, therefore, delete and merge would be a good option while removing a lot of the unreferenced material and stuff about its occupants alleged belief structure. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:20, 6 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel C. Dawes[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Was deprodded because "sources are present", however the external links do not demonstrate notability, nor do any of the google hits if you analyse them. ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the editor who deprodded the article. Article was tagged with prod-blp, which is only concerned with the absence of sources, (which is a lower standard than that of notability.) I believe that the sources listed satisfied the requirements of prod-blp, which is why I deprodded. As to the larger question of notability, I have no opinion. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PROF. Springnuts (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Nothing much found at Google, and Google News finds only a similarly named hockey player. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 3 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 Cat communication. Tone 16:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cat body language[edit]

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

Very short, unfocused, essay-like article. Most of this content is redundant to the main cat article, cat behavior and/or cat communication — and if it's not there, it should be there instead. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Cat communication. This is one of their primary ways to communicate (if not the primary way). I'm sure there is not so much to say for the general (cat-loving) public that all information on the topic of cat communication can not be covered in one article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge back, agree.Biophys (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Cat communication per Jaque Hammer and Biophys. I can't see what is the difference, so it is unneeded. If the article were feature-length, then a fork may be needed, but that is not the case. P.S. I am owned by a cat myself. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back seems to me to be a reasonable idea. Sterrettc (talk) 00:45, 6 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cybil Sadiq[edit]

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

I do not believe this article establishes notability as outlined in WP:NMODEL. Furthermore, I am unable to find any sources online that could be used to establish notability. Finally, only the lead sentence provides any encyclopedic information, the rest being mundane personal life details. Aka042 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources at all that aren't wiki mirrors or those stupid e-books for sale that are just wiki pages put together on Amazon. ManicSpider (talk) 11:34, 8 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. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faizal Yusof[edit]

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

Other than the one role, his family status and death, nothing here that meet the required notability guidelines. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:09 2 January 2011(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His death has been covered in Malaysia's largest English language newspapers, which suggests notability to me. But I'm not seeing much coverage of his career through the archives (this is one example of very limited coverage). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Faizal appeared as a regular cast member in at least four popular television series. Therefore he satisfies WP:NACTOR ("has had significant roles in multiple television shows"). WWGB (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above Spiderone 10:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is a stub... It can be completed, can't it. All books start with the first word... User:royalrec
Keep per WWGB - the multiple roles should be sufficient. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not clearly established. They say he had appeared in a number of Malaysian television shows and proceed to list only three? Saying he appeared in "many" TV shows without sourcing it is OR. → Brend an 08:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (1) There are four shows listed, not three. (2) The word "many" does not appear in the article. WWGB (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - Actually, stating he appeared in may shows without sourcing it isn't original research, it's making an unsourced statement. It may have been added based on personal knowledge, but that doesn't make it original research. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, the word I meant to use was "numerous". Still, "numerous"=? 218.186.8.252 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major newspapers don't bother with nobodies for obituaries that they create themselves. His passing was covered by the New Strait Times, and Malaysian Star, and I suspect that there is more coverage in non-English sources. Note that the Malaysian Star article states that "[t]he actor had featured in the popular televison series Tiramisu and Manjalara", which would supports point 1 of WP:NACTOR as having significant roles in multiple notable works. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 7 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) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Creţu[edit]

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

No independent sources attest to the notability of this autobiography. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An author's last try at immortality. --71.110.71.74 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANYBIO (as well as WP:AUTO). I'm surprised the article has lasted this long. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For starters, he was commissioned by Polirom to do the Romanian translation of Jonathan Franzen's "The Twenty-Seventh City". Which suggests that Franzen's publishers considered him sufficiently notable in the field of translation - comments in "Romania literara" at http://www.romlit.ro/an_bogat_i_cu_surprize. I can't comment on his Romanian output, but his writings have been published in various journals including Luceaferul and so have his translations - e.g. Metamorphoses - the Amherst/Smith/Univ of Massachussetts literary translation http://www.smith.edu/metamorphoses/issues/2000fall_contrib.html. Opbeith (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying Polirom chose him at random, but notability is demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not through editors' speculation about why a subject was chosen by a company to undertake a certain job. Likewise with his published creations: to be sure, those are peer-reviewed publications and his work didn't just sneak in there; at the same time, they are not a conclusive indication of notability. For that, independent, reliable sources about the subject are necessary. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I noticed a source was added, but it should be emphasized that this is his own publisher's website, hardly independent confirmation of notability. As for the mention of his spending summer 1996 as a writer in residence at the Mary Anderson Cultural Center — good for him, but let's not grasp at straws. How does holding a temporary job at an institution we appear to consider non-notable provide any evidence of notability? Creţu has had a career; I'm not saying it was an unproductive or dishonorable one, but nothing particularly distinguishes it from thousands of similar careers. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mary Anderson Center, there's no need for every item of information in an article to be notable in itself. Being commissioned to translate Jonathan Franzen does suggest you're quite prominent in the field (as long as the translation was OK). Isn't Cretu an expert on postmodernism in Romania? Opbeith (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward Delete. The argument about how Polirom found Creţu an expert on postmodernism is, I have to say, contrived; the one third-party comment provided about his Franzen translation only mentions that the translation was his work, and does in no way refer to the merits of his work. The subject may yet find coverage in such sources, but I find that these are still lacking, and, with all due respect for Mr. Creţu, do not think that he is (yet?) notable enough for his own entry. Dahn (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understood to be saying that Polirom found Cretu an expert on postmodernism that certainly would be a contrivance because I didn't say any such thing - an article on postmodernism he published in Luceaferul is cited by a Romanian academic but I don't have any competence in Romanian whereas Biruitorul does, which is why I asked him if he could comment on that, nothing to do with my comment concerning Polirom's choice of him to translate Franzen. I said absolutely nothing about Polirom considering him an expert on postmodernism, just that they'd commissioned him to translate Franzen. There's other evidence concerning his reputation as an Anglo-Romanian translator - eg the Pop works published in Metamorphoses. Given that there's no absolute imperative to delete the article - it's not as if it contains seriously contentious or misleading material - it seems reasonable to accept the country's major publisher's assessment of Cretu as useful rough "place-marking" information even if it's only indirect evidence. At the moment the evidence for notability is in the balance - and as usual in this kind of situation more effort seems to be devoted to contesting notability rather than to examining the merits of the case. Opbeith (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an imperative to delete articles that do not show significant coverage in secondary/third-party sources, and this regardless of their subject's contextual credentials. Dahn (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a more pressing need in this case than, say, trying to create an article on Luceaferul (the journal) or making good one of the red links in the Contemporary literature section at the Romanian literature article? Opbeith (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or even maybe correcting my mis-spelling of Luceafarul? Opbeith (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, but here's an attempt at an answer to your direct question: It is as imperative, only one takes less time to delete a useless article than to properly write a useful one. I for one am also doing much of the latter (for these past days, see Colecţia de Povestiri Ştiinţifico-Fantastice, Cuvântul (literary magazine). Dahn (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not just talking about time in the abstract, we're talking about the constructive use of time. As you're familiar with Cuvantul perhaps you would be able to comment on Cretu's status as a contributor to Cuvantul? Opbeith (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are talking about the time it takes to write not just an article, but a decent article; it is just as important and helpful the time spent trying to maintain a standard and screening whatever article was written out of vanity etc. To answer your question: it is clear to me that not all of Cuvântul's contributors are notable, and that in fact very few are; those that are notable are so not because of their CV, but because they and their work are amply discussed in third-party sources. Dahn (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Cretu biography of Mihai Eminescu cited at [2] any useful indicator of notability? I assume you and Biruitorul as native-speaking Romanians can judge better than I can. I'm puzzled by the anonymous editor's comment rather point-of-view comment about an author's last attempt to grasp immortality. That suggests that Cretu's output is known even if not universally acclaimed, and that Romanian discussion of Cretu's output exists that you might be able to refer to in a discussion of his notability whose general drift at least the rest of us could check using Google Translate. Opbeith (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of Google Translate I find this comment by Alexandru Surdu, President of the Institute of Philisophy and member of the Romanian Academy, about Cretu's 2010 publication Lecturi de serviciu (pub. Fundatia Culturala Ideea Europeana in the collection Biblioteca Ideea Europeana, ISBN 9789731925547, title rendered by GT as "Reading Service") at http://www.depozituldecarti.ro/carti/158240/Lecturi-de-serviciu: "The author proves an excellent knowledge of contemporary literature from other countries - authors, books, issues, themes, etc.. - As well as a great appetite for the related fields of literary awards, relationships between writers, literary movements of some of the dynamics that have marked the past century . In short, a literary space in all its complexity." Another mangled quote, from Niculae Birna, notes "Constitutive texts of the volume and consistency conveniently combines altitude ideas, but instructive and relevant, given the elegant appeal." OK, this is mashed-up publisher's blurb, but again the incidental evidence of Cretu being able to attract a usable comment from as distinguished figure as Surdu suggests that there should be more substantial evidence as to notability available with a bit of looking. Opbeith (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get something out of the way: I too am a native speaker of Romanian, and as such I can tell you that the two new links are unquotable. One is a personal page from a student site, the other a commercial site. Dahn (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about the quotability, we're talking about the likelihood of other sources being available before proceeding to destruction. The student page cited a biography of a significant figure. You choose to focus on the unquotability of the site rather than pick up on my suggestion that this was a possible lead to more substantial sources of information. So I presume that you as a native Romanian speaker are happy to assure me that despite Sernu's endorsement authoritative sources in Romanian indicating Cretu's notability do not exist and it is not worth pursuing any further attempt to consolidate the substance of the article. (Incidentally the Eminescu biography was a false trail as the author seems to be a different Ion Cretu). Opbeith (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a tree falls in a forest. From my brief investigation of what's out there on the net, it seems like Creţu is, at best, in a gray area of notability - he may in theory be worth an individual article in the future, but for now the independent, published sources that deal with him simply mention that he exists. Not enough. Dahn (talk) 11:24, 7 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 Houston Astros minor league players. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nevarez[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable minor league baseball player. Has never played above the AA level. Since he is still active, perhaps a merge would be best. Alex (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most interesting article I find is about him and three others getting added to the 40-man roster. And everyone but him gets discussed. Hasn't played a major league game. Doesn't meet wp:N or wp:BASE/N. » scoops “5x5„ 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Houston Astros minor league players per usual.--TM 23:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Houston Astros minor league players per standard practice. Alex, try merge tags instead of afd next time in cases like this. Spanneraol (talk) 03:37, 3 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 Withdrawn per sources. Clearly I still suck at using Google. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrat[edit]

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

Primary character, yes. Sources, no. Tagged for sources for 13 months and none seem to exist. Info is entirely in-universe and/or trivia (the "appearances in other media"). The only notable section is the "Controversy" header, which is given a non-neutral title and only a primary source. Outside that section, I see no reason to even bother with a merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Main character in two Oscar-nominated short films, key supporting character in three features including two of the top 50 highest-grossing films worldwide. He has been the focus of coverage in his own right such as this article from USA Today (excerpt at link). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary coverage shows he is notable as a character. I'm not sure if anyone will find the article since most of us don't know his name. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ice Age (film series). Those who do not know the character will check the film first. --71.110.71.74 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there's enough sources to justify coverage of some sort, such as this. Merge discussion can happen on the related talk pages. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character of a notable franchise who has himself been subject of much critical commentary. For example... we have Ice Age: The Essential Guide, Cents & Sensibility, Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2009, Film review, USA Today, Disney, Pixar, and the hidden messages of children's films, Ice Age 2: The Movie Novel, Makin' toons: inside the most popular animated TV shows and movies, and literally dozens of other sources which discuss this character in detail and in depth.[3] Impatience with other's lack of effort is, as was pointed out to me by the nominator himself not too long ago,[4] a far better reason to make the effort oneself rather than send to deletion and so force improvement upon others. And as multiple sources exist, improvement rather than deletion, is by far the better choice in improving the project... even if does not happen immediately. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recurring character (and running gag) in three major films, sources both listed above and in the article are sufficient to demonstrate enough notability for an independent article, but it also wouldn't be unreasonable to merge this article per the IP above--it also wouldn't be where community response this AfD is heading, though. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per above sources, and his appearance in Family Guy, which shows more notability if he appears in others shows. CTJF83 chat 02:56, 3 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marwin Vega[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher. He is 17-32 in his career with a 5.81 ERA. He played in 2010 but I don't know if he is still active, so I cannot suggest a merge. Alex (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage outside minor league game summaries. Fails both general notability and baseball notability. » scoops “5x5„ 19:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to hold off !voting for the moment, but I wanted to note that I, as the article creator, was not notified of this by the nominator. It is very bad form not to do so.--TM 23:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sowwy. Alex (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has apparently retired so is no longer in the Mariners system and merge is no longer an option. His minor league career on its own is not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 03:44, 3 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, Dusti^*poke* 00:30, 9 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. Davewild (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby Hernandez[edit]

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

Last season, he had a 4.91 ERA, the year before that a 5.23 ERA, the year before that a 6.08 ERA. He is not a particularly notable minor league baseball player. Since he is still active, perhaps a merge would be best. Alex (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some trivial coverage whenever a new team picks him up, but has failed to crack a major league roster. Even a terrible one, like the Royals. Not generally notable or baseball notable. » scoops “5x5„ 19:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually true. He was on the 40-man roster of three different teams: the Mariners, the Red Sox, and the Royals. That's why he's got an article in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per HBWS. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, easily meets WP:GNG. Full profiles in: [5]The New York Daily News, [6]The Miami Herald, the 2005-2008 editions of Baseball America's annual prospect guide, etc. Please do research next time before nominating. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Hit bull, win steak's sources. Rlendog (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several sources. matt91486 (talk) 06:40, 9 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever27[edit]

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

Article relies entirely on first party sources. I could not find significant coverage in any third party sources. Subject appears to be non-notable. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12. Almost the whole of the article is a copyvio of the first source. For regular AfD: No reliable sources or significant coverage seem to be available. » scoops “5x5„ 18:20, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Mitchell (tennis)[edit]

(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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see why the article doesn't meet WP:ATHELETE, but next time it would be nice for you to let me know about the AFD nomination. JayJ47 (talk) 22:42, 6 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.

- NOTE: This recently deleted article has been recreated. Mayumashu (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Requesting speedy deletion under G4 (recreation of deleted page). --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 21:28, 15 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cillit Bang EP[edit]

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

Article fails notability criteria for albums. The sources in the article are jut passing mentions. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator) The nominator says that the sources are only passing mentions, however WP:NALBUM actually states:

"In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."

Acather96 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artist may be notable, just, but I would expect the requirement of "multiple" reliable sources to satisfied by more than two, either of which could be seen as passing references or promotional. It didn't even chart, even in a specialist chart, and that, as far as I am concerned, is a killer in the notability stakes. Rodhull andemu 01:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, its claimed in the JAKAZiD article that it reached number 3 in the BBC Indie charts and number 6 in the BBC Dance charts. However, the refs in the article simply link to a page with the current chart information, so I am not sure how to verify. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found an archived version to show that is acheived the number 3 spot in the BBC Indie Charts. Acather96 (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUM also says: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Stub with no likelihood of growing. EP (not a studio album, as creator cites above) without indication of notability. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:57, 9 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) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Stann[edit]

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

no reliable source for any claims made, nothing approaching actual notability (note imdb is not a WP:RS Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability and no reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. IMDB entry does not seem to assert notablility. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 07:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:42. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:35, 8 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) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss & Tail: The Hollywood Jumpoff[edit]

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

This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. The subject is nonnotable, as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, or any major reviews or a wide theatrical release.

Keep if notability can be established The motivation of the article's creation should not be a reason to delete, if WP is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not yet been established as the film hasn't been covered in-depth by reliable sources. Also, WP:PROMOTION is written into WP:NOT and violations of that policy are grounds for article deletion. Them From Space 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:NOT also advises is if when seeming promotional, "the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other". So if article format or seeming promotion of a notable topic can be addressed through regular editing, THAT is what policy suggests as preferable to outright deletion, as both policy and guideline offer options other than the trash bin. I'll apply some google-foo before coming back here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - quick search reveals no significant coverage by reliable sources that would make this documentary pass WP:NFILM. So regardless of whether it was a paid job/promotional attempt, this movie does not appear to pass the notability guidelines.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just gave the article a sandblasting for POV. After diligent searches, I could not find enough to satisfy me that this one meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:11, 4 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) 19:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of the Underground: The Dramatic Journey of UGK[edit]

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

This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. The subject is nonnotable, as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, or any major reviews or a wide theatrical release.

Keep if notability can be established. The motivation of the article's creation should not be a reason to delete, if WP is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit."Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not yet been established as the film hasn't been covered in-depth by reliable sources. Them From Space 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quick search reveals no significant coverage by reliable sources that would make this documentary pass WP:NFILM.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The film was released on DVD just last August and is not making many waves. I just gave the article a sandblasting, but after diligent searches, I could not find enough to satisfy me that this one meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:32, 4 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) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Island (documentary)[edit]

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

This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. The subject is nonnotable, as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, or any major reviews or a wide theatrical release.

Keep if notability can be established. The motivation of the article's creation should not be a reason to delete, if WP is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitfoxxe (talk • contribs)
Notability has not yet been established as the film hasn't been covered in-depth by reliable sources. Them From Space 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting WP:GNG is not the only criteria upon which we gauge a film's notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quick search reveals no significant coverage by reliable sources that would make this documentary pass WP:NFILM.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yup, a keep. Just got through doing a lot of digging and made improvements and added sources to the article.[7] I have concluded after my work that this film does meet notability per WP:NF#General principles in that it is verifiable as being part of the curricula in many major universities in its being taught in their African American Studies programs as cited in the article and for having screened more than 5 years after its initial festival release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is to a library catalog.

The second is to another school's library cataloge.

The third mentions that this was aired at the Governors State University's "movie night", but does not discuss the film in significant detail.

The fourth is to another school's video library.

The fifth is a passing mention.

The sixth is to yet another school's video library.

The seventh is a passing mention.

The eighth is a passing mention.

The ninth is a passing mention/catalog entry.

The tenth is from the film's distributor (side note: look at the price.. yikes!).

The eleventh is to the Governors State University's "movie night"

The twelfth and thirteenth are identical copies of the same article that list the film as being shown at the the Governors State University "movie night".

The added references do not show that the film is taught as part of a film curriculum at a school with a notable film programs. They do not show that the film has been the subject of in-depth discussion by multiple reliable sources. The fact that the film is in college libraries is not an indication of notability. The fact that it was shown at a college "movie night" is not an indication of notability. The added sources fail to back up the point of the guidelines you cite, as well as the material you added about being taught in film courses. Not one of these sources or all of them combined confer any notability. Them From Space 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect that films must somehow always be "subject of in-depth discussion by multiple reliable sources". Passing mentions may be found suitable, specially for a short academic documentary film 20 years old, as long as they address the film directly and in some detail. Further, that fact that the film is recommended by School Library Journal and is included in university libraries on their lists for suggested reading for courses in African American Studies is also indicative of notability, even if only to African American history in the United States, and as the majority of regular documentary shorts never find their way to University libraries. A dismissive use of the phrase "college film night" ignores the fact that rather than a just a film night, the documentary was screened as part of the Governors State University acknowledgement of Black History Month... and this happened 20 years after the films creation and 10 years after a cited festival release, allowing historical considerations.

Further, and as this film was not mass distributed for its enterainment value, we might even consider that academic films serve a very different function and come to be published and distributed through very different processes than do films intended for theatrical release to the general public. They are often highly specialized, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated for mainstream films are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of notability include whether the film is published by an academic press, how widely the film is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the film is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Themfromspace on this one. I removed the statement from the lead paragraph of the article that explicitly states that the film is taught in universities. I reviewed every one of the sources provided and not one of them supports that statement. That being said, I don't think that criterion #5 at WP:NF is satisfied and the film cannot be judged notable as described within the criterion itself. This is not a "delete" from me just yet; I will look into the other criteria within NF and see whether the film can be judged notable before I cast my !vote. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find that none of criteria at NF have been met and there are no sources that discuss the film directly and in detail in order to satisfy GNG. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes.. reversing myself. While the issue of possible notability for an academic film paralells the same issues of notability for an academic text, it seems that that greater issue might end up be resolved elsewhere. My concern herein is that the allegdedly paid SPA resorted to blatent copyvio in creating the article. While yes, I tried to address it with my later edits, I do not feel inclined to support such actions. Look at how it appeared when first nominated,[8] and compare the text to the text at Filmmakers.com,[9] and you'll see the word-for-word copyvio in the plot section and the reception section. Yes, I try to save what I can... and a stub might actually be workable if later determined notable to academia... but copyvio is a serious violation of policy and an affront to Wikipedia. This one can go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 5 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. policy requires sitgnificant coverage and the sources provided do not appear to have provided that so by policy the delete votes are the most compelling but I'm open to a very quick undelete if someone does find some substantive sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zum Gali Gali[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria described in WP:NSONGS. No references for verification. Spatulli (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-known folk song and should not be judged according to the criteria for commercially distributed popular music. It appears in numerous books of and about folk music: see [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. In this article, Boy Scouts are suggested to sing "popular, easy to learn songs" such as "'Waltzing Matilda' (Australia), 'La Cucaracha' (Mexico), 'Allouette' (French Canada), or 'Zum Gali Gali' (Israel)." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To say "This is well known, it should be kept" is unprofessional and subjective. Anyway, I can tell you from my humble experience that this song is virtually unknown to most Israelis for example. Besides, the article's subject may or might not be notable, but it still lacks references and thus is not valid as an article in Wikipedia (as it is now). Spatulli (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's well known because I personally know it. I'm saying that it's well known because it appears in many books. See [18] for a scholarly article mentioning that another survey had listed it among 128 songs that all children should know from a K-12 music education, and one of only nine songs in the "multicultural" category. There probably are sufficient sources to get this article into decent shape, but I can't guarantee that I will be able to add them before the end of this AfD period.--Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It appears in many books" reminds me of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. I saw all of those refs you brought in here and didn't see even one that could demonstrate the song's notability or give significant/decent coverage about it. Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Spatulli (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Metropolitan90 has provided references. The nominator's comment is a patent misrepresentation of what Metropolitan90 was saying. Opbeith (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you think I misrepresentated Metropolitan90's words, what I was just saying is that the article itself lacks references, an it's still true. My main point, however, is that no matter how much references you can find for this song, notability hasn't been established yet, as the significant coverage hasn't been found. I, personally, know about more than a hundred (!) songs from the halutzim period (before the State of Israel was born) so it won't bother me to create articles for them with plenty of references and listings I have about pioneer songs. Please see WP:ITEXISTS and WP:GNG for more information about the notability policy of Wikipedia, i.e. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Spatulli (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there an article about them? --Pnm (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In its present state, I'd vote to Delete, however, if it improves so that it approaches the level of usefulness as the La Cucaracha article, I'd vote to keep. --GHcool (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mere reproduction or mere mention (which appears to be all that Metropolitan90's sources demonstrate), does not "address the subject directly in detail" and so does not demonstrate notability. No indication from Google News/Books either that any such depth of coverage will be forthcoming. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient information for me to want it retained. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be sufficient enough for you, but not necessarily for the purpose of building an encyclopedia.. Spatulli (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- Every source presented thus far has been a reproduction of the song itself, or an exceedingly passing mentions. As it currently stands, the article says little more than "Zum Gali Gali is an Israeli song, these are the words, this is how you sing it", and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or a lyrics database. I am very open to changing my opinion if someone can come up with sources that go into depth about the song rather than actually being the song. Reyk _YO! 04:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 307 results from a Google book search. A lot of people consider that to be an important folk song. I don't know if any of those books has been reviewed someplace, or it or its writers have Wikipedia articles, and its too many to check all of them. One of the 35 Google news results show it is used in protest, and make other references towards it. Dream Focus 13:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All sources presented are either reproductions of the song or passing mentions. No indication of why it is notable. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - If there are sources, they should be implemented into the article to describe the song's notability and/or any importance. If this were done, my vote would be KEEP. But since the references have been given and nothing has been added to the article to improve it, there doesn't seem a need to keep the article... If it is notable as the long list of references (which I did not verify) imply, fix the article. Otherwise, delete it. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:54, 9 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Today[edit]

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

Album with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The album can be mentioned at the band's page, but it has not received sufficient coverage beyond networking, downloading, and retail sites. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contains no information at all other than a track listing. Not notable. Fails WP:NALBUMS ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:50, 9 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzer (band)[edit]

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

Israeli band which does not appear to pass any element of WP:BAND Nancy ^talk 15:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. [19] is an "article that simply reports performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" as per WP:BAND; and the Hebrew sites are about an "online competition" of minor bands. Spatulli (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Diggle[edit]

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

Fail WP:BLP1E, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS case that have already been forgotten by now, just like every other attempted rape cases.

Every subsequent event have been related to that trival attempted rape case therefore it fall foul of all those above. Donnie Park (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:GNG. Gbooks reveals a number of mentions over the years that indicates that his case has not been entirely forgotten. That and the other news blurbs suggests on-going coverage. Location (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into date rape as this seems to be the context in which most sources discuss the matter and that article could use some help. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and continuing interest and coverage. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is really interesting. This case has really come to epitomize the debates about date rape, the treatment of men by the legal system and how the social status of women affects how assaults upon them are treated. A Google books search turns up many reliable sources. However, as a BLP this really needs to be edited for NPOV and sourcing. (Which I would start on now but I'm too tired to think that straight.) - ManicSpider (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Also - am I the only one who winced at the phrase 'trivial attempted rape' in the nom?) - ManicSpider (talk) 12:38, 8 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) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One Future Races[edit]

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

WP:CBALL. WP:NOTSTATS. No context to subject given. Appears to be little other than a table placed for no other reason than for creating a table. Data is additionally duplicated in numerous other articles. Falcadore (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Midgrid (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information better suited elsewhere. Trebor (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Formula One grands prix. Jonchapple (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nomination. Nascar 1996 02:27, 7 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuto Hoshiko[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No fully pro caps, and no significant coverage. Very clearly non-notable. Sir Sputnik (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kadian Lecky[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated in the nomination, he fails WP:NSPORT, since he has not played in a fully-pro league, and he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:05, 8 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) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsley Deer[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 09:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without fully-pro league appearances and significant coverage, he is quite clearly not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:03, 8 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) 18:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Vučinić[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable found Spiderone 13:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and he fails WP:GNG, thus making him non-notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:01, 8 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) 18:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Henderson (Mayor of Ludington)[edit]

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

Mayor of a city of less than 9000 people. The article has no 3rd party sources that discuss the subject, and apart from expected gnews hits in the Luddington Daily News, I don't see anything to suggest this is a notable mayor. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tassedethe (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a guy with a job. Athough Ludington sounds like a nice place and he seems to be doing a good job as mayor. BTW I will take off the list of elected officials from Ludington's article since WP is supposed to be for information of lasting importance, not a snapshot of info that can be found out from the town's own website better.Jaque Hammer (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever might have been the status quo in 2006, it's pretty well established that there's no inherent notability under WP:POLITICIAN for mayors of towns. And, despite the large number of entries on the disambiguation page, there's no inherent notability for folks named John Henderson. Mandsford 02:25, 4 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) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of richest women in USA[edit]

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

Unsourced - tracking it back to Ranker.com, a website where anyone can make a list, brings us to a 13 year old who hasn't revealed where they got the information. As it stands this is either original research or a copyright violation, which we cannot directly check. Such lists as these are matters of research and informed opinion, and they belong to the person or organisation who did the work, such as Forbes. If someone is prepared to research who originally created this list, rename the article, source it, clean it up, and reduce it so it is a sample rather than the entire list then it would meet our guidelines. Otherwise it should be removed. SilkTork *^YES! 12:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simple lists can't be copyrighted, so that argument is not valid. Questioning the reliability of the source is perfectly fine, though doing so at AfD is not the best place. It should likely have been tagged as having questionable sources and some time allowed for doing what you're suggesting (verifying sources and cleaning it up). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you are saying. However, while lists of simple facts cannot be copyrighted, lists that are the result of research or expert opinion, such as Forbes_list_of_billionaires and Rolling Stones 500 Greatest Albums, are copyright, and this has been decided in courts of law, and is what Wikipedia follows. A person's wealth is not a fact, it is a matter of informed calculation based on detailed professional research, and opinions would differ. Such research and educated calculation is creative, and is a person's intellectual property. This is a list which has either been taken from someone else's research without any acknowledgement - which is copyright theft, and Wikipedia can be taken to court for that; or it is made up by an uninformed 13 year old based on their assumption, in which case it is Original Research. We keep neither on Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple lists can not be copyrighted regardless of how they were created. Now, if they were part of an article or research paper or something similar, then the article or paper could be (and would be) copyrighted. Even then, however, the the simple list itself can not be copyrighted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. It doesn't have any good references, provide net worth figures, or even say when it was compiled. As of October 2010, Forbes says Christy Walton tops the list, not Alice Walton. It could be an article, just not this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 3 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 Move to Murder of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Ghorbani-Zarin[edit]

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

as sad as his death is, it doesn't meet WP:VICTIM and he falls under WP:ONEVENT. gnews shows a big spike in coverage at his death and then very little afterwards. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the BBC references already in the article indicate, the death of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin and the trial of his girl-friend's family was a very prominent case that highlighted concern in the UK over the issue of honour killings in the context of social debate over integration and multiculturalism. There was extensive coverage in the UK media (BBC, Times, Guardian, Telegraph, all in the first couple of dozen hits). This is an AfD that highlights the destructive waste of time and effort that the AfD process in its present form encourages. Opbeith (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books is usually better than Google News for determining long term notability, and it finds [20], [21] and [22]. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in any case it's precisely the wrong moment to think of deleting the article as the case is still "live" in the UK [23] - Chomir Ali was granted the right to appeal in early December (NB case followed at Stop Honour Killings website). Opbeith (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rename to Murder of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin. The article is focused on the murder, not a biography, and does seem to me to be a one event biography. However I think there is enough coverage to establish significance of the murder, so think an article on the murder is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BBC references, per Opbeith opinion of nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move/rename per Davewild.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the changing name part.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 9 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. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark – Kazakhstan relations[edit]

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

this topic really lacks coverage, most of the article is a direct copy of this. coverage is sorely lacking as in this search in gnews [24]. yes the Kazakh President visited Denmark in 2000 but not much else (one story on reaction to those Danish cartoons), and if that's the only major bilateral visit in 18 years of relations says a lot. those wanting to keep should provide evidence of indepth coverage of actual bilateral relations not passing mentions or mentions of these 2 countries in articles mentioning 10 countries. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep $500 million is a significant amount of trade and Danish companies seem to be substantially invested in portions of Kazakhstan's economy. The high level visits over the past decade indicate importance. To LibStar's point that there has "only" been one visit by Kazakhstan's President to Denmark, what has happened in the past matters just as much as what is happening at this moment.--TM 22:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you mean less than 100 million of dollars. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there seem to be important business connections between these two countries. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- WP:V. ~~$500 million~~ [488 million DKK or $85 million] is less than [0.1%] of either's GDP, so is hardly "a significant amount of trade". And there is no indication that Danish companies' investments are 'substantial'. No indication that either nation places any especial emphasis on the relationship. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of US GDP do you think is with Israel? Are those relations notable? This argument is ridiculous.--TM 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Namiba: Israel gets over 1% of its GDP each year (approx $2.5 billion pa) as direct aid from the US. This is ~~FIVE~~ [FIFTY] TIMES the total trade between Denmark & Kazakhstan as direct aid. It is your counter-argument that is "ridiculous". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So relations are only notable on the Israeli end, correct? If you read my question correctly (which you didn't), you would have seen that I wrote "US GDP" not "Israeli GDP". My point is that for relations to be notable, GDP to trade is not a useful indicator. Here is what I see in the article: a Presidential visit to Denmark, a visit by Kazakhstan's foreign minister in 2010. I see hundreds of millions of dollars in trade going each way on a yearly basis. I see controlling interests by one country's conglomerate corporation in the major economic producer of the other. All of which is verifiable with reliable sources, all be they primarily governmental and not from a commercial media.--TM 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The economic relationship (being the one affected by your WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE argument)? Not. In. The. Slightest. Economically, the US would not even notice if Israel fell off the side of the earth. Politically, of course it's a different matter -- the US has a very powerful pro-Israel lobby. But given that Denmark does not possess a similarly-powerful pro-Kazakh lobby, this is irrelevant. Likewise the WP:ROUTINE visits, the trade figures are really quite small (compared to either country or to global trade) and far-flung owenership by multinationals is commonplace (and only tangentially related to the relationship between the two). And I am now completely sick to death about arguing about such obvious trivia -- SO GIVE IT A REST! Neither the two countries involved (no direct representation) nor third parties (no third party coverage) really care about this vestigial relationship -- so why should Wikipedia violate policy by having an article on it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the surprisingly significant economic ties between the two states. These alone seem notable enough for me. The article is sourced and the coverage looks fine to me. Outback the koala (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tens of millions of dollars of trade is not significant. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hundreds of millions of dollars is notable no matter what. The nation allows most of its oil to be owned by a company in another nation. Things like that are notable and this article is a good place to have them. Dream Focus 14:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you mean tens of millions of dollars. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Outback the koala and Dream Focus. I too was surprised how well-documented the trade and diplomatic relations were between these two nations. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

which diplomatic relations are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as I pointed above, this article's existence isn't simply in violation of WP:Notability guidelines, it is in direct violation of WP:Verifiability policy -- "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I would note that none of the keep !votes have even attempted to address this point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I would also point out that (i) most of the keep !votes have been WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE, and thus invalid. (ii) Adding to this problem is the fact that they are under a misapprehension, typified by DreamFocus' "Hundreds of millions of dollars is notable no matter what" that such figures aren't completely commonplace in terms of world trade (or even in terms of the economies of even medium-sized countries), where it is only in the billions that numbers start to really matter. When the numbers creep into 10-11 figures, bean-counters at Foreign Ministry start to think that maybe the numbers are becoming big enough that they actually care more than nothing about them, so should open a small consulate that's actually in the country to prevent the sort of misunderstandings that cause these numbers to go down the toilet periodically. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further further comment: I would note that Kazakhstan considers its relationship with Denmark to be so earth-shatteringly important that they haven't even bothered to update their page on the topic in four years. If you listen closely, you can hear the snoring in Astana and Copenhagen. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting old. The last time I checked, whether something was "important" or not is not a guideline for notability on Wikipedia. The consensus on here is to keep anyway, so it is not worth discussing further, especially if you continue to be condescending.--TM 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A pillar of Wikipedia is that it is an almanac, and this is standard almanacical information. Commons outcomes have been to merge the smaller ones into larger Foreign Relation articles. I don't know of any that have been deleted in the past. So, the argument is: is this big enough for a stand alone article or should it be duplicated into the two foreign relation articles? I think it is big enough that we only need one copy, and not two copies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. Most recently Canada Tonga. In many cases none of the content has been merged. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and you have participated in almost all the bilateral AfDs so please don't pretend "I don't know of any that have been deleted in the past" LibStar (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment on hundreds of millions of dollars of trade this is false, the article misrepresented the source which says Danish kroner. Given thay 1DKK=0.17USD this equates to less than 100 million of USD of trade. LibStar (talk)
Keep - trade and economic relations. well-documented too.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also dont see the point in the Afd taging of national relations by Libstar, which has led to a number of unnecessary Afd discussions. I wonder just exactly the same thing that you was wondering about my arguments on another Afd, have you actually read this article? Because if you had you wouldnt have put it up for Afd. This article is clearly notable and the relations between the two nations are established by sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted most recently Canada-Tonga. Please check the article version when I nominated it, it was a copy violation of this. I always read articles unlike you which has been clearly demonstrated in various AfDs. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no "relations" between these two countries to speak of -- just a couple of facilities owned by Danish multinationals, a TINY amount of trade, a very rare state visit and some fishermen. The typical sort of trivia that never-say-die inclusionists load up an AFDed article with to give the vague appearance that there is something to write about. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:02, 7 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. per below, and WP:NOTNEWS. L Faraone 05:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IRS[edit]

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

Surely this cannot be notable. Delete or merge somewhere. Rd232 ^talk 12:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a brief human interest story that was picked up by a few newspapers the day or two after it happened. Not lasting notability. --Jayron32 19:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really difficult to over-estimate the under-importance of this topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coordinated reading of a letter or a press release or a story on the radio does not make the document notable. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 9 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Goffin[edit]

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

Repairing and completing nomination on behalf of Mayumashu, will enquire on his talk page what the rationale is. --Pgallert (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied the rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Goffin, which was an old nom from 2005 --Pgallert (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I wish to nominate the current page (too) for deletion as the player in question fails WP:Notability to tennis players (has not competed in a main draw ATP Tour match, has no Challenger titles, has not played in Davis Cup, not notable for his junior play Mayumashu (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Goffin has today qualified for a ATP Tour event (see 2011 Aircel Chennai Open – Singles), allowing him to pass now WP:Notability for tennis Mayumashu (talk) 14:40, 3 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. Per WP:V; remains unsourced even afer the AfD. Sandstein 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hykko[edit]

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides which this is an obscure word in either Finnish or German (the article is not clear) which hardly seems to be used anymore. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
move to wiktionary 184.144.163.241 (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because it violates WP:DICT (it doesn't) but because it's completely unsourced and violates WP:Verifiability. Searching Google Books for this term revealed nothing useful, so unless reliable sources get added, we have no way of knowing that this isn't a hoax. —Angr (talk) 12:22, 6 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmovie[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Triwbe (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually "not a dictionary" does not apply since the article is about a new type of semi-movie for text readers, not the word "bookmovie" itself. However a Google search for "bookmovie" only gives instances of "book" and "movie" next to each other, especially in the phrase "comic book movie." Although "bookmovies" as described in the article sound like a good idea there is no evidence that they exist. At least not under that name. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pindos[edit]

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, much less is it a dictionary of Russian slang. Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOTABILITY. Non-notable slang term. --DonaldDuck (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It actually seems to be fairly notable in the field of Russian slang words, but that's not something WP should deal with. Jaque Hammer (talk) 18:31, 3 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. Single purpose accounts have been given little weight and there is a strong consensus among other editors that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Behzad Fatahi[edit]

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

Non-notable assistant professor, insufficient evidence of influence in his field. The awards are student awards, and there are no external news sources suggesting they are important (only press releases). He might prove to be notable at some point, but not yet. As an aside, the article was written by him and he removed the prod. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom.Farhikht (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Farhikht (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable assistant professor. The Major award is "Australasia Young Railway Engineer of Year 2007" which is for Young Civil/Railway Engineers and not students. This National/International (Australasia) award was announced on the awarding organization's website (RTSA, Ref 1) and several other websites (e.g. Ref 4). Dr. Fatahi is a young assistant professor with major achievement in the development of the novel idea of Green Corridors for Transportation Infrastructures. Largest Australian Newspaper (The Australian) has reported on Behzad's achievements and novel idea, and further information can be found on the following link [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.126.160 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — 60.241.126.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Tiny citations. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. DrPhosphorus (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , Young high achiever academic. Researched in a challenging multi disciplinary area of botanic science-civil Engineering. He was named Young Railway Engineer of the Year 2007 and this is major achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fouzieh.lotfi (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — Fouzieh.lotfi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep , Developed novel model in Geotechnical/Railway Engineering. The NSW company RailCorp spent about $2 billion between 1995 and 2005 on track maintenance, Dr. Fatahi' model could drastically reduce that bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.126.160 (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC) — 60.241.126.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

this argument is WP:CRYSTALballing. LibStar (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), specifically that the person's impact be demonstrated by independent reliable sources (I don't think that any of the sources in this article at the moment are reliable in the sense defined at WP:RS). Also appears to be an autobiography, raising conflict of interest issues. —Jeremy (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies two items (1 and 2) as set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), specifically "the person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", Dr. Fatahi got the award and honor of Young Railway Engineer of the Year 2007. His achievement and Novel idea of green corridors for railway lines was also announced in the National TV of Iran, here is the video [26]. In addition BBC Persian as the top international new agency has also interviewed him for his achievements, and the link is [27]. Furthermore, many more references come up by just Google Searching بهزاد فتاحی . There are many clear evidence of his significant impact in the area of soft soil improvement below railway lines by native vegetation. I have noted that his name has been already added to the list of University of Wollongong people [28] with proper reference of the award "Engineers Australia RTSA website". Retrieved 2009-10-23.</ref>— DrGeotech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete obviously his fan club has turned up to vote here. fails WP:PROF. "Australasia Young Railway Engineer of Year 2007" does not advance notability. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Nothing aside from the "Young..." award. These very very very common "Young" awards are just that; given to young researchers who show promise. In Wikipedia terms it means; not yet notable. Abductive (reasoning) 13:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He was cited only 10 times in ISI citation index. This tells he is not notable as someone who works in the field of engineering. However, references by DrGeotech show that he was covered in newspapers and on TV, which might justify his inclusion.Biophys (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The major news agencies such as BBC and National TV announcement may justify inclusion of the article. I came across his other invited lecture given in the Australian Geomechanics Society – Sydney Chapter in March 2008. [29] and it looks many other presenters in this society are well known in the field of Geomechanics . [30] I also suspect that “Australasia Young Railway Engineer of the Year 2007” can be considered as prestigious academic award in national or international level because it is awarded to Professional Railway Engineers on annual basis in a competitive way, from a prestigious organization Engineers Australia and may pass WP:PROF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathsLive (talk • contribs) 07:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — MathsLive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Enough to cover notability and establish a permanent article. Well know Railway Engineer in Australia and Iran for his novel idea of growing native vegetation along railway lines [31], [32], [33]. In addition, to BBC Persian as cited by DrGeotech, Behzad was covered by several major news agencies in Iran such as Iranian Students News Agency in the following link [34] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailEng (talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — RailEng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Notability is clear from the external sources and news coverage mentioned in the article and above. The RTSA Young Railway Engineer Award 2007 was awarded to him in a Australasian (national/international) competition by the Railway Technical Society of Australasia (RTSA) of Engineers Australia to reward him as he (1) reached a demonstrated level of achievement and involvement in the field of railway engineering; (2) exhibited technical competence, good character and integrity; and (3) and assisted in developing or improving the attitude of the public and/or within the engineering ranks towards railway engineering (taken from RTSA website [35]). Obviously it is not student award and it is well established professional Railway Engineering award in Australasia awarded on annual basis to one or two top young professional railway engineers. I think this article not only should be saved, but have to be improved.— PhDScience (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. It looks some have not spent enough time to check the cited references. The award is a notable award. According to reliable sources, mainstream news sources such as BBC and Iranian Students News Agency are generally considered to be reliable. Furthermore, the following links are considered as Scholarship according to reliable

sources; [36], [37],[38], [39], [40]. I suggest to develop this article further by including more info about “Green Corridors for Railway Lines” — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiotechAU (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — BiotechAU (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. H-index of only 2 and a collective total number of citations of only 14 (GS). Not hard to see that this is a vanity page. Obvious and heavy socking. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The award is a student award; WP:PROF explicitly does not count these. His academic impact is low, so he doesn't pass WP:PROF#C1 either. I found absolutely nothing under his name in Google news, so WP:GNG is out. And blatant sockpuppetry is also not a reason for keeping articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. All these accounts should be blocked for voting fraud per WP:DUCK. Biophys (talk) 18:41, 6 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. Sandstein 06:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Salvato II[edit]

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

Autobiographical vanity article at which vandals are having a field day. No sources can be found except Wikipedia and Wikipedia-like sites; in addition, Frank created the article back in April 2006 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was on the verge of nominating this last night but it was bedtime. No sources that I found in Google Books, which is where this should pop up, or in Google News. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 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 result was Speedy close as incorrect venue. No one, including nominator, is advocating deletion in this case. According to the Deletion Policy, any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. Non-admin closure RoninBK _{T C} 19:05, 2 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 Speedy close as incorrect venue. No one, including nominator, is advocating deletion in this case. According to the Deletion Policy, any user can boldly redirect to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. Non-admin closure RoninBK _{T C} 19:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual honesty[edit]

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

Redirect to intellectual dishonesty. Jeffro77 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I was going to close this discussion and instead open it at RfD, but apparently that process is for discussing redirects that have already taken place. Anyway, I should point out that the nominator did boldly redirect before, but another user keeps disagreeing with it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This term is used only as an opposite to intellectual dishonesty. EALacey (talk) 10:57, 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 redirect to Woolaston. and merge as appropriate Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woolaston Common[edit]

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

This appears to be just another name for Woolaston. The same applies to Woolaston Slade and Woolaston Woodside. If I'm wrong, please let me know. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You may or may not be right, but if you don't know, you might first do some research or put a note on the article talk page inviting others to advise you rather than simply apply to delete. "appears to be" and "If I'm wrong, please let me know" seems an insubstantial basis for seeking deletion. Opbeith (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For little-trafficed articles like these, a comment on the talk page would be ignored for at least six months, assuming if anyone ever commented on it. I know there's no time limit here, but I'd like to see something happen rather than nothing. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Ordnance Survey mappers seem to think that these are distinct places. Deor (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are districts within the scattered village of Woolaston. The names are rarely used outside the village and its immediate environs, and the article contents (such as they are) would be better placed within the main article at Woolaston, which already contains information on other hamlets in the area, such as Stroat. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline as to whether they can do considered separate settlements, but if the Ordnance Survey is naming them separately, we'll probably have to go with that. Failing that, redirect all to Woolaston. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The article on Woolaston calls it a hamlet. WE are unlikely ever to get more than a short stub, so that it is better to concentrate on the article on the parish of which it is part. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:08, 3 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 Alien (franchise). not really possible to merge unsourced OR but the redirect is obvious Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weyland-Yutani[edit]

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

This is a fictional company with no real-world significance. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete, and redirect the title to Alien (franchise). The article is pretty much all plot summary and some OR. What little real-world content there is as far as the creation of the fictional company is already covered in Alien (film). ~~That said, the company is a central and recurring element of the franchise & the real-world content could be merged to the franchise article.~~ I marked it for ~~such a~~ merge back in March 2008 but nothing ever came of it. ~~Now seems like the time.~~ --IllaZilla (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After considering Reyk's comments below, particularly the fact that all the contents are unsourced, I've changed my !vote. We really shouldn't merge unsourced content, and there's no need to retain the history of something that's 90% plot summary & 100% unsourced. The fictional corporation's role in the plots of the films is already well-covered in the plot summaries within the individual film articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the franchise article, significant plot points in universe. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - but there's gonna be a lot of redirects to fix. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, but the bigger question is "Why is this at AfD?" since there appears to have been a perfectly valid merge tag already existing on the article. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- After considering a merge with Alien (franchise) and with the articles on the individual films, I have come to the conclusion that it would be inappropriate. Firstly, there is not a single source in Weyland-Yutani, and it is never a good idea to deal with unsourced original research by shovelling it into other articles. Alien (franchise) would be a bad place to put this content because that article currently, and very properly, focuses on the real-world impact of the film franchise. Dumping stuff about a fictional element into that article would be incongruous to say the least. Considering the individual film articles, I note that Alien (film) already contains much of the content of Weyland-Yutani- properly sourced. Aliens (film) and Alien 3 already contain much of the plotcrufty material of Weyland-Yutani. So there is no call for a merge; of the obvious merge targets, one would be made worse by including that content and the others already have all they need. Really, I wish people would actually read the articles involved before calling for a merge. Merge is not a soft cop-out option for people who have to admit an article is unsuitable but can't bring themselves to type the dreaded D word. Reyk _YO! 04:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Given there are a number of other Alien (franchise /universe/character related articles, I don't see how there is a cause for deletion. I'd suggest the creation of an article dealing with the Alien fictional universe and its concepts, where subjects like this could be placed together.Punkrocker1991 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alien (franchise). The content is unsourced and should not be merged per WP:V. A redirect allows a merger to take place later from the history when third-party sources are added. Sandstein 06:40, 10 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 Mandsford 19:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hydroelectric power station failures[edit]

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

No one knows what the list is for. If it's not for dam failures, which is covered elsewhere, it shouldn't be for a hodge-podge of enemy action, transmission failures, mechanical failures. There's no criterion for what failures go on the list, and every plant trips once in a while anyway. Wtshymanski (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I first saw that page, I wanted to AFD it too. So I don't know, maybe we could delete iff the creator doesn't have good reasons... Reh man 05:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of catastrophic hydroelectric power generation station failures, and restrict content to failures in the generating yard/generating house/transformer yard. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, isn't the new name a bit too long? If you want to keep it, we could always simply mention the criterion in the lead, without really renaming the whole page... Reh man 05:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it's a bit too long... though yeah, you could just add my proviso to the current article/name. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list elswhere which covers solely the catastophic loss of power from a dam - such an occurence iis highly significant and is quite seperate from the structural faiure of a dam. Thereofore this list is highly significant. It cannot easilly be ocmbined with the dam faiure list which includes many non hydro elctric dams. The fact it is a hodge podge of different causes could equally well be applied to the existing dam failure list. It is quite abnormal for a large dam to lose all its output since this involves many simaltaneous unit failurs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs)

Delete There is nothing inherently more "catastrophic" about a hydro generation site going off line than a fossil unit going offline. It might be more unexpected, since there are fewer things to go wrong. A hydro site can typically go back online quicker, since they do not have to go through such a long startup sequence with boiler feedpumps etc. The list is a hodgepodge of dam overtopping and transmission yard problems, mixed with wartime bombing. No prospects for a complete list, no clear definition of which trips are catastrophic: "hours or months" of outage: how many hours? Cite some standard industry definition of "catastrophic outage." Edison (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - ref the above comment - the use of the term catasrophic applies to the effect of losing say the 16 GW of the iataupu Dam - losing a nuclear stations of say 2 Gw is not catasrophic in this sense. some of these dams are much bigger than single nuke or fossil stations and if all the breakers open simaltaneoulsy or the line is lost, then this is indeed catasrophic and makes headliens round the world.Engineman (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going offline is not a catastrophic failure, a boiler exploding is a catastrophic failure. So your statement about going offline makes no sense. The generating house of a Russian dam recently was destroyed, killing most of the workers inside when a turbine destablized and blew apart, flooding the entire structure and blowing huge holes in the building. That would be a catastrophic failure, a complete loss of power is not a catastrophic failure, and that sort of failure should not be listed. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an interesting list that can not be found elsewhere. BTW, do we have List of nuclear power station failures?If not, we should. Biophys (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is surely not realistic to compare the routine outage of a tyical 500 MW turbine gen set, with the for example the Iatapu failure which caused lost the entire 16,000 Mw and which would not have been anticipated by the designers,whereas routine tripping would have been. The article specifically excludes routine tripping.

"This caused massive power outages in Brazil and Paraguay, blacking out the entire country of Paraguay for 15 minutes, and plunging Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo into darkness for more than 2 hours. 50 million people were reportedly affected.[7] "¬¬¬¬

- That's a transmission failure, not a hydroelectric failure; you might as well call the great blackout of 2003 a hydroelectric failure, I'm sure a few hydro plants went off line during that debacle, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes but it is inherently linked to the fact that the transmission is to a very large singel source of power.
Delete for reasons listed by Edison. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are notable disasters, and to have their list seems to be very much reasonable.Biophys (talk) 23:08, 1 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, Dusti^*poke* 05:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into hydroelectricity. I forgot what happened along the way, but this list used to be in the hydroelectricity article. I agree with the article's author that these types of failures are significant mainly because hydro plants are the largest in the world. But I don't think a stand-alone article is necessary for the amount of failures.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps give the list more structure. Moving information out of main articles into subsidiary lists and then deleting the list is yet another of the ways in which Wikipedia devours and discards the effort involved in its own creation. Opbeith (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Johnfos (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no strong reasons for deleting the page, although the structure and content could perhaps be improved to make it more useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbEppel (talk • contribs) 11:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Needs attention but the inclusion criteria is clear: This list is concerned with severe and abnormal power outages which caused major power failures due to damage to the hydro site itself. ; however I'd like to be sure that the entries are verifiable: can someone clarify that? I see only one entry sourced and at least another entry has mismatched information in the power station article (Itaipu Dam reports a failure in 2009, but the list talks of a 18 GW failure in 2008). --Cyclopia ^talk 01:36, 7 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. a lot of the keep votes are opinions rather then policy based and the policy basis for a standalone article is that the subject has significant third party sources that discuss the subject in detail, Noone seems to be arguing that this is the case so consensus by policy is pretty clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World of Greyhawk timeline[edit]

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

There is one reference that talks about the development of this campaign... but not about the actual timeline. All the other references are books, manuals, and other material from business partners affiliated with the original publisher. Not enough to WP:verify notability. Also fails the policy that Wikipedia is WP:NOT#PLOT, because this article is inherently designed to do nothing more than extract plot from books and games and summarize them attached to fictional dates with uncertain accuracy. Any information that isn't plot is already in the main Greyhawk article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a note at the D&D project talk page in the hopes this can be fixed up Hobit (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Keep as a derivative list that would normally be on the (rather hefty) Greyhawk article (i.e. size limitations preclude it being mentioned there). The history is a key (not minor) plot element that is integral to many of the subsequently written adventures. Many list articles are restricted to repeating information in one or more parent articles, but are used for format reasons (i.e. ease of reading) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Casliber. Plus, there have been some improvements since the nomination was made. At worst, a redirect to Greyhawk will preserve the edit history. BOZ (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic doesn't have reliable third-party sources and whatever sources are found about it aren't independent of the subject. It's an unnecessary content fork that also fails the criteria of the general notability guideline and it's more an unneeded exposition of all possible details. In my opinion it also doesn't meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists either. For all these reasons and the reasons exposed in the nomination, I believe that it is within the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the gamespy article is clearly a reliable third-party source. The interview at ENworld is more debatable (is enworld reliable in this context? I'd say yes. Is an interview of the author a third party source? Again I'd say yes.) Hobit (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article at Gamespy is not about the "World of Greyhawk timeline" but about "The Complete History of Dungeons & Dragons" which means that it does not prove in any way the notability of the topic "World of Greyhawk timeline". Even if it were about "World of Greyhawk timeline", it would be only a single source which still doesn't prove that the topic has significant coverage, not merely a mention in a single source. "Dungeons & Dragon" is notable, "World of Greyhawk" is notable, but not this timeline with no real-world coverage that is written with an in-universe perspective. As for ENworld, it is a forum, so in no way it is a reliable source and therefore it doesn't work for notability either. In fact, it shouldn't be used at all. Per WP:V, if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it, and the topic "World of Greyhawk timeline" does not have them. The notability of "World of Greyhawk" is not inherited to every single content fork related to it. Jfgslo (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The ENworld interviews of Gary have generally been accepted as a RS. There was confirmation from the admins there that it was really Gary and reliable source publications confirmed it (no I don't have the link at the moment, it came up at WP:RSN at some point I believe). I think Gary is a reliable source. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Regardless of that, that source is not independent of the subject and it's not a reputable publication, so it doesn't show notability, only factual accuracy. It is only one primary source, a creator of Dungeons & Dragons, not several independent sources that show significant coverage. On top of that, the topic of the interviews is not "World of Greyhawk timeline", but question and answers about Gygax's work in Dungeons & Dragons. The article does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia so there is no reason to keep it. Jfgslo (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep While there are a lot of primary sources in the article, they don't negate the ones that count toward WP:N (see my comments above). So seems to meet WP:N. I'm less sure this is a reasonable topic for a Wikipedia article, but viewed as a spinout of the main article I suppose it is reasonable. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: An article dedicated to the chronology of a fictional universe (= plot summary) is a violation of WP:PLOT which forbids to write plot-only articles. Chronologies aren't acceptable on Wikipedia, even viewed as spinouts, period. As for the Development section, it doesn't have anything to do with the chronology (but more with how the creator came up with the story, which is already covered in a much better way in Greyhawk) and was obviously slapped on it only in an attempt to game WP:PLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to say a fictional timeline in this case isn't a plot any more than a list of fictional characters is a plot. Both are elements of a fictional story. We have plenty of articles like this [41] for example. Are you claiming that too should be deleted? If not, I'd like to understand what you see as the difference. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't know where you picked this strange reasoning that because this article is up for AfD we wouldn't do the same for others. Many chronology articles (even the Harry Potter one) have been deleted recently, because people agree that these violate WP:PLOT, so don't worry, there won't be any exception. And summing up the plot in a list format isn't any different from a prose summary. As for character lists, there are generally secondary sources about their creation, or their reception, which usually help building a good article that is not entirely plot...I agree with you that in some cases there are no secondary sources and these articles violate WP:PLOT, but it's not a reason for keeping this one.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just checking for consistency. I'm still unclear how chronology==plot, especially in a case like this. I mean _what_ plot? It's a history of a fiction place where no one book/module/whatever probably covers more than three of the things on the list. Star Wars is very similar. Harry Potter, well, significantly less so. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't see how a list of events in a fictional world would not be plot. Are you sure you know what "plot" means ? The plot is the fictional world and everything that happens inside it. Plot = story, thus, story in chronological order = plot. I'm not going to paraphrase endlessly, so I hope you get the idea.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't imagine how that can't be viewed as a personal attack. If you'd like a response, please rephrase. 03:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
        There is nothing to rephrase. I'm perfectly right, the discussion I had with you established that you have a definition of the word "plot" that diverges from dictionary entries that I quoted. If you can't find anything to answer to my arguments, that's your problem, but don't make allegations just to avoid admitting you're wrong.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note: I removed all the copy/pasting from Greyhawk that had nothing to do with the chronology and was only an attempt to game WP:PLOT. If people need to copy unrelated content from the main article in order to make this one seem more complete or to have secondary sources, then it's a sign that the Chronology can't stand on its own. (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the development section since an explanation of how the timeline came to be is encyclopedic material. I agree that the previous version was too long, so I rewrote a very condensed version. Note that the material that was previously removed included a third-party reference from White Dwarf that is unique to this article--that is, it is not found in the World of Greyhawk article--and is particular to the concept of the development of the timeline. Guinness323 (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed all the copy/pasting that is redundant with Greyhawk, and left only what is strictly about the timeline. I don't see the point of adding the full account of the creation of Greyhawk (whether the game itself or its fictional world), already efficiently covered in the main article, except gaming WP:PLOT by adding text only to trick people into thinking the article is not plot-only. If this is the timeline article, then it should only mention the timeline, the history of Greyhawk already has its own article. If the only way you can think of making this timeline article encyclopedic is turning it into Greyhawk n°2, then I think you should propose a merge, if it is not deleted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and started a discussion on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acceptable summary article. NOT PLOT says that Wikipedia coverage of a fiction should not be limited to the plot: a very good principle for which there is general consensus. It does not dictate the content of any particular article among the group of articles that may deal with that fiction. There have various attempts to say that no article about any aspect of a fiction may deal only or almost only on the plot, but they have never achieved consensus. There's no firm rule, so there's no point in referring to one. (I think there ought to be rule: if the plot is sufficiently complicated, the rule should be that an article dealign with it separately is a very good method of organization--but I do not think there is any consensus for that either, and I don't try to make it the way I want by merely stating it firmly. In this particular case, the article is ppropriate as part of the group of articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your claims, WP:PLOT directly limits articles content, and there is clear consensus on what articles about fiction should not be. They should not be this. Oh, by the way, what happened to the general notability guideline, which says that a topic is notable only if it was covered in reliable independant sources ? Are you going to pretend that it doesn't limit content either ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information in this article could be added to World of Greyhawk, whose notability as the second-ever D&D campaign setting is not in question. However, this is a long article on its own, and World of Greyhawk already borders on being too long. Having a separate wiki for the timeline simply breaks out that info for readers who wish to explore the topic further, without any loss of notability for the group of articles about this world. Guinness323 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is indiviual and not inherited, it doesn't work for a "group" of articles. Each article must have its own independant secondary sources, which is of course not the case here. If this article is too long, that's because it is over-detailed trivia.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:22, 2 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, Dusti^*poke* 05:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep m:Wiki is not paper. The topic is notable and the information is verifiable. Thus, whether it exists on this page or the main article is purely a stylistic matter. The two pages are too long to combine, ergo stylistically this should be a separate page. The idea that because it is on a separate page the information is no longer valid for inclusion is simply false/contrary to founding principles. It would essentially force all information on any given topic to be constrained onto a single page - in violation of our style guidelines and common sense. --12.42.51.28 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also isn't a plot-only description of fictional works or a fansite. All articles must meet the general notability guideline or the stand-alone lists guideline. This article does not meet either of them. The topic does not have notability because there are no independent reliable secondary sources about it. Two pages too long with redundant material means that one of the pages is an indiscriminate collection of information. Nothing from this timeline is necessary for the Greyhawk or the Dungeons & Dragons related articles. Wikipedia is not a paper but that policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies. The article World of Greyhawk timeline is in violation of the policies and guidelines. It doesn't even follow the related Manual of Style for fictional topics. Jfgslo (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, and apparently nearly all of the other respondents, disagree with the opinions you have expressed above. Greyhawk certainly is referenced in reliable secondary sources and m:Wiki is not paper certainly does not only 'allow', but encourage inclusion of detailed information relevant to notable topics. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, relevant information for notable topics. With a complete lack of independent third-party sources, this article is not notable, no matter what fans of the series may think, and it doesn't cover relevant information either. Jfgslo (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point that was trying to be made is that the general consensus on the page seems to be that you are incorrect.Guinness323 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the point I'm trying to make is that AfD reviews are not simply a majority vote. Valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. And so far arguments in favor of keeping the article are unsupported statements, such as claiming that the topic is notable despite that there are no independent sources covering it. Jfgslo (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the only ones who want to keep this article are either fans or people involved in its redaction, and they tend to be partial and ignore every issue with the article, just because they like the topic. In spite of all the fan enthusiasm here, no one was able to bring forth a single independant secondary source, meaning the topic is not notable, whatever the consensus may be at this moment. AfDs are not supposed to be a contest of "who will gather the most people", but whether we can verify the notability of a given topic (that's why an AfD result can be based on the strength of arguments instead of merely being a head-count). And it does not matter how many fans claim without proof that a topic is "notable", no matter how unsourced/unsourceable the article is, just because it happens to be their favorite fiction. This is not opinion, but fact: this article violates several core policies, is not notable, and thus doesn't deserve to be here, period. No matter how much our dear IP may like Greyhawk, (s)he is absolutely wrong in claiming that individual articles would not have to meet the general notability guideline on their own, and wouldn't have to comply to WP:PLOT, and Jfgslo is right when he reminds the IP that WP:NOTPAPER is "not a free pass for inclusion", something that fans tend to conveniently "forget". The IP and others offered us their biaised point of view as fans, but it doesn't change the way WP works, and contributors are not "incorrect" when they remind fans that there are limits even on Wikipedia.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folken, your claim that all people voting keep are doing so because they are fans is a bad faith assumption. Your claim that the article is unsourceable is disproved by the fact that it has sources. Ditto Jfgslo's claim that it has no independent sources. That is simply false. They are listed right there at the bottom of the page. Could it use cleanup and more sources? Yes. But the claims that it is unsourced / unsourceable are clearly false. Yes, valid arguments carry more weight in deletion reviews... so why are you restricting yourself to assuming bad faith of those disagreeing with you and making false statements about sourcing? --12.42.51.27 (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folken de Fanel is not making false statements about sourcing. As I mentioned earlier, none of those sources prove notability because they are not reliable third-party sources independent of the subject and none of them treat the topic "World of Greyhawk timeline". The claim is not that the article is unsourced but that the topic does not meet the general notability guideline because the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Any topic can be covered in detail using primary sources or material published by sources dependent of the topic, as this article does, but that does not mean that any topic is notable. And this article doesn't even use sources that treat the topic in detail. The article may be factually accurate but the topic is not notable. And no keep vote has addressed this problem so your claim that the article is notable is unsupported. And it is not the only problem, as it has been pointed out by others. Jfgslo (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making "false statements" is a serious accusation, and if this doesn't stop I will ask for the IP to be blocked (and checkusered). Yes, the article technically has sources, but they are attributed to content that is not related at all with the subject (which is the timeline), as it was noted by Sgeureka and Sandstein. All the sources in the article come in fact from a copy-pasting of the main Greyhawk article, which is not acceptable for several reasons. So in fact, there is not a single secondary source concerning the Greyhawk timeline.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the AfD started, a major part of Greyhawk#Development of history and politics was copied to this article, not only lacking the correct attribution per the GFDL (copyvio), but also making it redundant with the main article. I've participated in lots of fictional timeline AfDs, and the vast majority of these articles (like this one) had the same problem and hence were deleted: their intention was to be a retelling of a fictional timeline, i.e. nothing but a plot summary in in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. The section "The Greyhawk timeline" (the majority of the article) has to go either way, the rest (section "Development of the original timeline") is redundant to the main article, and so nothing but deletion makes sense to me. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The timeline itself is merely a non-concise plot summary (WP:PLOT) of the various works presented in a non-encyclopedic format (using the fictional timeline rather than real chronology as a framework). The development section can go back to the main article. Sandstein 06:44, 10 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 Adolphus Channel. By our attributaion rules we cannot merge without a redirect without a history merge taking place so if users are still unhappy with the redirect they need to come and speak to me on my talk page with some solutions to this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manar Group[edit]

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

This is a difficult AfD. The article is written by a well respected contributor See edit, but at the same time multiple editors edit & edit are unable to find support for it. As we all know from Wikipedia:Verifiability; "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, not whether editors think it is true." The article is in Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 which is the oldest category of articles on Wikipedia tagged as needing references. While we can all beleive that the content is true, and hope that someone will come along with references, to meet WP:V there needs to be some reliable sources to meet Verifiability for the article to continue to be included in Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 17:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a suitable reference can be found. I've looked for an online reference and found very little which isn't a copy of the article and nothing which is a reliable source. However, there may be available material in print or in an Australian government geographical database. If such a source can be found, then my vote will change to keep.-gadfium 17:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Merge to Adolphus Channel, but drop the name Manar Group as unverifiable.-gadfium 17:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless this can be verified. This group is islands doesn't appear in searches of Geoscience Australia's place name search which strongly indicates that it's not an official name for a group of islands and searching Google maps also doesn't produce anything. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worse is that I cannot find it in the Queensland database hosted by DERM — Search for "group" and nil results for "Manar". A search of Trove returns nothing of relevance. billinghurst sDrewth 03:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Merge to Adolphus Channel per the below discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or failing the weight of policy merge into Albany Island, Queensland (so as to create a redirect not a strait 'delete' - a close reading of material around the naming of many features in the area suggests nomenclature bound queensland and federal authorities might not be up with the Torres Strait Islander Coordinating Council - or vice versa - that does not remove the capacity of places to have names Satu Suro 00:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/cdview?pi=nla.map-vn3791390-e would provide argument for development of the Albany Island article Satu Suro 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should remain with an unreferenced tag. Being absent from google hits or a list is not a basis for deletion. Appearing in a category of these older article is not a reason either, it was probably there because it was supposed the fact was added from a reliable source; nobody is disputing the veracity of that. There is a lot of historical content like this here, useful facts contributed in a culture of good faith and trust. Providing references for every fact has been a strong trend since then, but is still overlooked when it is by active and established users. I don't see the advantage in deleting it. This seems to be a retroactive application of current inclusion policies, for new contributions, to delete something that is otherwise unobjectionable. cygnis insignis 06:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and oppose merge: it makes an unreferenced fact a confusing reference. There is a difference between unverifiable and unverified, a local not knowing is not evidence the user made it up, and this very likely to be one of the many things that are not found via google. The ref will emerge one day, someone will add it because they want to, it is more important to do that sort of thing. cygnis insignis 18:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming you mean opposing redirect and/or the use of "Manar Group" as it fails WP:V. Much of the content currently in the article is actually about Adolphus Channel so is appropriate in that article. If so I concur, Oppose Redirect and use of "Manar Group", but do support moving content related to other articles. Jeepday (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per place name search as proposed above; possibly taken from an old map or somesuch; A redirect would be useful if any ref. can be found- the islands included in the group are adequately catered for (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment - this is not as speedy as the delete arguments might think - there is - as long as some smart ed comes along and does not read this carefully (as they are wont to do) - that the name comes from either the creole - Torres Strait Creole or one of the local aboriginal languages of the northern cape york area - in which case arguments for the usual databases - imho - they are a complete and utter waste of time and deny the possibiluyt that a print source that is not on google might povide an answer - so - the possibility of providing a source (or two) - may take a day or so - if some one closes this at this stage - they clearly have not read the text and deserve more than a trout slap Satu Suro 13:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objects to holding the closing of the AfD for a couple days to give SatuSuro a chance to check other resources for sources, and I doubt anyone who is voting delete would have an objection. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me to holding the AFD for a while to enable sources to be found.-gadfium 18:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you the civility is surprising compared to the way some afds I have seen - it might take into the new year the way things are going - and anyways if it is not a keep - i would still like to see a merge of the info wherever possible to the Albany Island article please as it is the main island of the group anyways Satu Suro 11:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pile on, I've got no problems with putting this on ice while there's a search for references. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CSIRO marine reseach has no doubt about the existance of these islands, though they refer to the area as the Adolphus Channel and surrounds so I wouldnt be adverse to a merger of the two articles. Gnan garra 11:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any referenced material that is appropriate for another article should be copied into the article(s) it is appropriate for. If SatuSuro does not find references for the term "Manar Group" for these islands, a merge/redirect would not be appropriate. But any referenced content that would be appropriate for another article would be appropriate regardless of the outcome of this debate. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the existence of the islands, the problem is that none of the sources found appear to use the name "Manar Group" (or Manar anything). The appropriate target of a merge is probably Adolphus Channel.-gadfium 19:13, 30 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, Dusti^*poke* 05:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Life is short and so, it surprises me to note, is the total quantity of human time available to be devoted to Wikipedia. Given that the originator of the article appears to command respect for their scrupulousness, cartographical information is often available only in undigitised form and there is no indication of anything untoward about the article, it would surely be more sensible to devote attention to articles that are more obviously in need of it. Opbeith (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opbeith. Some people like a challenge, and that can be reason enough. billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would seem the person who lives close by - has been unable to ascertain an easy found references - so I would repeat my comments that I consider the Adolphus Channel to be the better domain for any work to date Satu Suro 12:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to close, per the comment on my talk page and above, as well as local research [42]. Remain unable to verify, much content is appropriate for the Adolphus Channel article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – unfortunate, but they are the rules. Can I comment (ask?) that it should be closed with a removal decision, that it is made without prejudice as no reference information, not through lack of notability. Jeepday … thanks! billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the comments above by User:cygnis insignis, and trying to frame a fails WP:N argument, we know that Adolphus Channel is notable and one of the islands Albany Island is claimed ^{[citation needed]} to part of the group, is notable. So it would be hard to image that a group of islands encompassing both of these would not meet WP:N. No one can tell what the future will bring so I would think just one or two WP:RS published prior to the 2006 publication in Wikipedia would support both WP:V and WP:N. References published after 2006 would be questionable particularly if they were minor mentions, due to the likelihood of the "Manar Group" article on Wikipedia being the original source. The possibility that there are several old published works supporting the article but out of reach to us, is real, but WP:V specifically excludes that rational not whether editors think it is true. (or may be true). Jeepday (talk) 23:21, 7 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. Courcelles 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a list of people classified by their first name. Georgia guy (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild, remove the list of firstnames for people, and replace with the see also section, since this should lead somewhere, and we have a mass of disambiguation pages where it could go. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:56, 20 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) 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has many, many lists of people by first name, e.g. Adam (name), Zelda (given name). That's why there's a "given name" template. The article should have that template, as it's not really a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 26 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, Dusti^*poke* 05:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see no apparent reason not to have this list of Jimmies.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:26, 5 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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 05:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fahri Asiza[edit]

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

WP:N concerns on a long-unreferenced BLP. While it is hard for me to imagine an author of tens of books (and Google Books confirms this, most of the 70 results are simply those books) hasn't generated significant, secondary coverage, but looking through the pile I just didn't find secondary coverage that also was substantial. The language issues make that a bit challenging to dig through with automated translation. Perhaps someone here can do a bit better than I can, I'm frankly at a loss to find significant secondary coverage of this author in order to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please close as nom, I found one or two sources to dig at, I'll renom if I can't get it up to grade. Thanks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:53, 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. Courcelles 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael-Anthony "Mooki" Taylor[edit]

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

I couldn't find anything significant in a RS on him. Best I could dig up was [43] and [44]. Hobit (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to meet WP:BIO. Looks like WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 4 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. Courcelles 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Rampage[edit]

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

Speedy Deletion was declined because there was a trace of significance, however there is no trace of notability or sourcing. Dusti^*poke* 04:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSPORTS. Non-notable minor league American football team. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Delete Per Dusti Dusti<hey>TALK</hey> 04:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Erpert. Liking someone is not a ground for an article. (Aside - if you want real physical football, try rugby league or even union.) Peridon (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS When you use colours, could you cancel them when you get to the end? I just found I'd posted in red and I don't even know how to... 8-( Peridon (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, I can't agree with the physical thing, but yes, this article sucks and is definately NOT notable. Themane2 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on how to improve with notability or sourcing; still a work-in-progress. Disagree with comment about Minor League football not being physical--it's as real as any other level of football (and moreso than rugby). Rampage is only 1 of 9 teams in Iowa and Webster City is the second smallest town to have a team; all competition is from big cities such as Des Moines, the Quad Cities, Lincoln (NE), Omaha (NE)... Blaze finished as Runners-up to Oklahoma Thunder in World Bowl IV of the WFL. Again, please advise (new to Wikiworld). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper of Archives (talk • contribs) 00:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Advice Hi newbie! I've been here for 22,000 edits and I still feel new sometimes too! My recommendation is that you look into WP:USERSPACE and edit articles there first for a while, then bring them in to the "mainspace" -- userpsace is designed for development of articles and is a great place to get started.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any implied lack of physicality doesn't apply here and has no bearing. What does have bearing are the following: 1) Conflict of interest WP:COI comes up as the article appears to have been written by someone from the team or otherwise closely connected; 2) Failure to meet notability standards (WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT); 3) Contains original research (WP:OR); 4) miscellaneous violations of WP:GROUP (group is too local for coverage in Wikipedia) and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not your free web hosting server); and then there's the links in the article that are just plain wrong! I'm reasonably sure that musician Drake Bell, American gospel folk group Joe and Eddie, Dateline NBC reporter Chris Hansen, actor Clint Howard, and any of the names on the disambiguation page for Brian Miller are not associated with this team. The article should be blanked immediately and moved to incubation because of that alone.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After seeing the above post, I've delinked every person's name in the article. Most were red links anyway, but none of the blues seemed even remotely likely to be playing for this team. I've left the red linked teams alone, as they aren't causing confusion. I think the article creator just wikilinked everyone. probably thinking that was the thing to do. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 3 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond C. Gruss[edit]

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

Seems to fail notability criteria. Not all authors necessarily warrant an article. Jeffro77 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my arguments in the first AfD. I note that no one has improved the article with the sources listed and/or discussed there, which is a shame. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument at the first AfD was that you deemed the Google News hits notable. There are six Google News hits. All but one is in passing reference to novelty news items about Ouija boards. One is a Wikipedia mirror about JWs. The Google News results would therefore suggest that he is a reliable source for article about Ouija boards, but do not seem to indicate notability to warrant an article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author is notable in his field and with people interested in the subject matter. The books were all published by regular publishing companies, ie: not self-published and the topics cover a small area of published materials. He or his work is often mentioned by other authors as can be confirmed here: Google Books Dwain (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability per WP:BIO is nil. Notability per WP:ACADEMIC is unestablished, and would need to be determined using the citation metrics indicated therein.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is a long time ago that I had much to do with criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and the like. This is a narrow field, and I suspect that the subject of this article is one of the leading scholars in this field. The college where he is a professor emeritus is clearly a relatively small one, but that is not unusual for a college that appears mainly to be a specialist theological college. The nominator describes himself as an atheist and a member of the Jehovah's Witness workgroup. This makes me suspicious of his motives - wanting to get rid of an article on a person who is a thorn in the side of that fringe group. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing, and a little confusing, that you imagine an atheist would care that a particular author is a 'thorn in the side' of a particular religious group. Based on the sources, the author is more notable for his comments on Ouija boards, which I care even less about. The fact remains that the article is of poor quality, has had no expansion in several years, and is of limited benefit to the project.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Jeffro how on the same day you wrote the above statement about it not being expanded you actually removed some of the "expanded" informtion from the article that was added the day before. It's understandable since you could "care... less" about the main subject matter that Gruss writes about, you'd not realize the important contributions he has made in his studies and writings concerning those fields. So maybe, instead of nominating an article for which you know nothing about, you should either learn about it or recuse yourself from wanting it deleted. Dwain (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was removed because it was unsourced—mirrors of Wikipedia articles are not valid sources. Regarding Gruss' other area—Ouija boards—about which I have little interest, you are of course welcome to expand the article if there are indeed reliable sources (rather than puff pieces) discussing Gruss' research about that topic. As an aside, the correct expression is couldn't care less.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 7 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, and merge to Thumb war. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb wrestling ring[edit]

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

non notable thingamajig/whatchamacallit WuhWuzDat 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Toy from 2005 that never really took off. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I laughed, almost !voted to delete but chose to do a search first. This thing looks notable. Perhaps notable for worst idea ever, but... [45] is an article solely on the topic (well I can't see it all, but it is titled "GIVE A HAND TO THE GUY WHO REVOLUTIONIZED THUMB WRESTLING" and includes the quote "Say hello to Rick Hartman a former schoolteacher who is the creator of the Officially Sanctioned Professional Thumb Wrestling Ring". [46] discusses a competition which appears to use this thing and [47] also seems to be solely about this thing. There are a lot more [48] (though not all are about this thing). Oh, [49] apparently has at least a passing mention. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Thumb wrestling as this is a piece of equipment for that sport. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somehow I seem to remember these existing before 2005, possibly even giong back to the 80s, but it's possible I could be wrong about that. Anyway, delete per Erpert, minor toy that didn't take off or become culturally significant in any way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. 1 the supplied sources put it from at least the 90s. #2 Is there a policy-based reason to delete, or is this more an IAR thing (which I fully respect btw)? Hobit (talk) 22:47, 3 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AraPacis[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 26. Courcelles 04:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Courcelles is travelling (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All references are affiliated with and/or controlled by AraPacis. No reliable independent sources could be found, even after adding a variety of key words to narrow the search, such as "heavy metal", "rock", "goth" and "Quebec". Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Slugguitar who objected to deletion and has edited the article has a conflict of interest. He openly admits he is Jerry Fielden, the lead guitarist and front man for AraPacis. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I did not write the article but do keep it up to date for album news and member changes, yes. As for reliable sources, I would think that Brave Words and Bloody Knuckles as well as Blabbermouth.net are quite reliable metal music sources. And not controlled by the band. As well as Quebec Pop for the French side. Slugguitar (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band appears to have been around for a while but all I can find on Google are passing mentions...on blogs and wikis. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:18, 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 no consensus. I have given the arguments be single purpose accounts, which did not make arguments based on the notability guidelines very little weight. This leads me to close this as no consensus, as there is still disagreement over whether it meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Oppenheim[edit]

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

Non-notable physician/politician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Article not supported by secondary sources. ttonyb (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known through out New York and famous neurosurgeon. Recognized mayor throughout various areas.Very notable and should be kept on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – The article fails to provide support for the statements you have made here. Without adequate secondary sources the article fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I beg to differ the article thoroughly supports the statements that I have previously made and has secondary sources for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Spinoloricus (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)— Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Per the criteria, the secondary sources have to be "non-trivial". The articles you have added are not about the subject of the article and only mention him briefly. Again, the article fails to provide adequate secondary sources to support the article. ttonyb (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's been elected mayor, even aside from any neurological notability. JamesMLane t c 22:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Again, the article fails to demonstrate Wikipedia based notability. ttonyb (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no justification for this person's notability outside of his own "small pond". He has a few articles at Google Scholar, not enough or widely enough cited to meet WP:SCHOLAR. He has been mayor of a village of fewer than 4000 people, not enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. He has served on some boards of directors and some hospital boards; so have thousands of others, that does not confer notability. Google News provides one item from the New York Times, a 1992 wedding announcement; otherwise all hits are from a local paper, The Journal News, which seems way too local to establish genuine notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" perhaps Dr. Oppenheim needs to site what notable achievements he has done for the medical industry, ie articles,lectures.... As a Neurosurgeon in the North East, he is quite notable. Google should not be "the end all be all" to decide if a person is notable. Sorry Google. Vschwaid (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)— Vschwaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – You have not provided any justification for including the article. Just because he is a Neurosurgeon does not make him notable via Wikipedia. Please advise how he meets the notability criteria listed above. ttonyb (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not said anything about using Google as your only source to see if someone is worthy of Wikipedia. Spinoloricus (talk) 1:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)— Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Coment – What if he were to add medical achievements (articles, lectures...)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Articles and lectures won't cut it. Thousands of people write articles and give lectures. Please understand, the process here is not about evaluating Dr. Oppenheim's worth as a physician or his contributions to the community. I'm sure those are valuable. But to be included in Wikipedia a subject has to be "notable," as defined at WP:N and/or WP:BIO and/or WP:ACADEMIC; the gist of those requirements is that there have to be outside, independent sources STATING that the person is notable, or writing substantive articles ABOUT him, or citing his papers in a way that demonstrates that he is a thought leader in his field. I'm sorry if this seems strict, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. There have to be some criteria for inclusion, otherwise it would be overwhelmed by articles about subjects that are not really encyclopedic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N states that someone has to be "worthy of notice" and Jeffrey Oppenheim is very "worthy of notice" he has pretty much fixed the town he is mayor of and he had the first case of a spinal cord bypass that facilitated partial recovery from a spinal cord transection, using a peripheral nerve transfer. If that does not make him "worthy of notice I don't know what will. Spinoloricus (talk) 1:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)— Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment – "Worthy of notice" means that someone other than the author of the article or a Wikipedia editor has noticed the subject of the article. Specifically, it means the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ttonyb (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MelanieN has written a page about a director of the San Diego Zoo from 70 years ago who has no distinctions and a cartoonist, minimally published, who no one has even heard of. The advocates of deletion don’t seem to mind posting their articles even when they are about far less notable persons. Here, there is certainly no reason that this individual is less notable than the people that Melanie has written about. Newspaperwriter10021 (talk) 1:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)— Newspaperwriter10021 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment – Per WP:WAX the existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. The bottom line here is unless this article is shown to meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN using reliable sources this article will most likely be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Newspaperwriter10021 is right I checked with the two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) — Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Spinoloricus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment – Per WP:WAX the existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. The bottom line here is unless this article is shown to meet the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN using reliable sources this article will most likely be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tony. I stand behind the articles I have written, but they are irrelevant. Newspaperwriter and/or Spinoloricus, you should read the section Arguments to avoid in AfD discussions. "Look at this other article" is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "I never heard of it" is irrelevant per WP:IDONTKNOWIT. If you can't come up with some REAL arguments based on WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE SOURCE criteria, this article is likely to go. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as a politican, he is laughably non-notable, but reviewing the publications by him as a physician, he might be so. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 5 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 Deletion Nomination Withdrawn I agree, this article is now informative and adequately sourced. There is now a clear topic. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Na Gbewa[edit]

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

Article is entirely based on original research and speculation. The topic of the article is also quite unclear, jumping between two different subjects. A google search has 2,700 results and it appears there is a place as well as a person with this name, but I could find sources for the person described in this article. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - interesting, informative article which a bit of input referencing from other editors is rapidly turning into useful information in an area in which Wikipedia is substantially defective. Novice editors, particularly editors from outside Wikipedia's core national communities, are easily deterred by the summary execution procedure that AfD often represents. I'm unclear why the AfD was instigated the day after Kamek98 asked to be allowed a bit of time to work on the article. The tagging seems almost obsessively uncooperative. Opbeith (talk) 15:44, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure RoninBK _{T C} 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate Project[edit]

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

I cant find a single Reliable Source for this thing, a couple of conspiracy books and none seem to be reliable for anything. This could be largest Hoax ever on Wikipedia. Most sources lead back to Joseph McMoneagle so it might be a viable redirect. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piltdown Man is a hoax, but we have an article on it. Even if it is a hoax, it does not make it a deletion target. Since this has coverage from many sources, and is used as the basis of films and TV shows, it seems rather notable. We have UFO articles, afterall. There appears to be quite some mentions about Star Gate's remote viewing in various sources that are not conspiracy sites: [50][51] 65.94.45.209 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding, 65.94; the argument is not that the subject of the article is a hoax, rather that the article itself is a hoax, being a completely non-notable and indeed completely made-up theory; the variety of published (albeit extremely fringe) sources lead me to believe this may not actually be a hoax, but I'm going to do a bit more research before I opine here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article clearly isn't a hoax, it just needs a lot of work to clean it up; it states wild conspiracy theories as fact, but sources like this one reliably suggest that it is true that the U.S. did run a paranormal project, before deciding that it was a waste of money and it was producing results which were 75% nonsense. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course possible that the conspiracy theory itself, about the extraordinary claims of paranormal activity and whatnot, is just a hoax theory, but in that case that material can simply be removed. Most of it should be removed as being clearly WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE anyway, and the article will be left with the facts of what this (somewhat embarrassing, for the U.S. Government) project did entail. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Good Work I was unable to find a source like the Time Magazine one. I hereby withdraw my nomination for deletion since it is confirmed to be some sort of actual program. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:59, 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.

January 2015

issues of Content: Years ago, I made an attempt to help clean up this article. Unfortunately, an attempt to discredit me and my background in this article can be restore and corrected. I hope that again, this article can be properly and professionally cleaned up and rid this article of blatant dis-information.User:AEMoch — Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queef Fraiche[edit]

Queef Fraiche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

WP:N, no notability...the "references" are all links to wikipedia pages that do not mention anything about the article. The author removed the proposal for deletion without discusion. Passionless (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minimal notability, nothing more than passing references and very brief reviews. --Jayron32 03:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. A three-sentence review and a forum discussions with one user - apparently connected - posting one line do not make sufficient notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how I can make this more notable? I have references to market places, other applications like it, forum and non-forum links, loop backs to wiki pages. I'm not quite sure why you don't believe this is notable? Please provide information on why the external links to the market places, etc are not notable and I will correct the article. But I need specifics since your reason for sighting that this is not notable is very generic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnacules (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please tell me why the Zune Marketplace, W7App's and WindowsMarketplace are not good published sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnacules (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnacules:It's not the quality of the sources in this case, its the depth of the coverage. While some of your sources may count as "reliable", there's just not enough material in those reliable sources to clear the minimal thresholds set out at WP:GNG. --Jayron32 03:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A listing in a marketplace database conveys merely that the product exists; if that were sufficient for notability, we'd all be notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and points made above. Dismas|^(talk) 03:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Online stores merely prove it exists. Existence is not notability. The existence of similar items does nothing to imply notability. Forums are not reliable sources. Blogs without editorial oversight are not reliable sources. Other wikis are not reliable sources. Searches return nothing notable: a couple of blogs and forums. » scoops “5x5„ 18:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per nom: none of the sources demonstrate notability as required by the WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 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 speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Community College[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. I can find no evidence that this community college exists. A Google search only gets the Wikipedia article. The article's prose is a bad joke. Disputed prod. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it looks like a hoax. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably hoax. Could not find in Department of Accredited Postsecondary etc database. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged speedy. If you read the text the page is an obvious hoax, an endowment of $27? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: There's a G7 tag on it now. Ravenswing 05:24, 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. Courcelles 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic Poles[edit]

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

A list that has never had any entries since its 2006 inception?! Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a project devoid of substantive content that was abandoned nearly five years ago by an editor who retired from Wikipedia shortly thereafter. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My only query would be whether the (non-list) content might be recycled as the basis of an article on ethnic Polishness, as distinct from the article on Ethnic Poles, but the useful content is minimal. Opbeith (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, empty list; just a poor OR description of what it would contain. To the extent this attempts a valid topic, it's already covered at Polish diaspora. postdlf (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no content.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 3 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. Courcelles 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Krupa[edit]

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

Self-published author. No Google News or Scholar hits. No Google Books hits apart from self-published works. Completely fails WP:AUTHOR. Not notable. » scoops “5x5„ 01:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, independent sources about this author could be found, though there appear to be at least two other people with the same name visible in cyberspace. Article created by new single purpose account. Highly likely that this is an autobiography. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 01:48, 3 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. At this point, with no further comments seemingly forthcoming, a well-sourced article that satisfies WP:N is not something that should be deleted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Monast[edit]

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

BLP (edit: not living) of no significant importance; sources self-published. A conspiracy theorist with a very small following and ideas covered far less than fringe ideas such as lizard people & thetans. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only reputable reference discusses general photonic weaponry principles, nothing of Monast R3ap3R.inc (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor, but not only self-published, per reprints after his death. Main source is Pierre-André Taguieff, a respectable academic third-party source, whose works are not as represented by the nominator either. (The "notes" are not the main sources, hence the different header.) Nominator was asked to discuss qualms on the article talk page, but chose not to discuss - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 19 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) 00:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:59, 26 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, Courcelles 01:34, 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. L Faraone 05:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prostaderm[edit]

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

This is a non-notable commercial product. It is not an approved medication, rather just another "herbal" remedy promoted via spam. All the references are about the ingredients, not the product itself. Deli nk (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article full of unverified claims about a non-notable product. Google search finds nothing but spam; Google News provides only a press release; nothing found in the medical literature. I wish there was some way this could be speedied. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 4 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 undecided so keep. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somesh[edit]

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

Nothing in this article indicates why there should be an article about this particular name out of the millions of given names in the world. It's not a disambiguation page with a list of people of the name, it's just a definition which at best should go to Wiktionary, but my tagging it as such was deleted twice, so there's no point in edit warring about it. Corvus cornix_talk 06:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

other articles also exists like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohit . ss 06:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC) — • contribs) 06:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So let's delete Rohit too. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page, as is the case for other pages about given names. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOW ?????????? ss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someshvrm (talk • contribs) 07:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (see my rewrite). Most articles about given names may be disambiguation pages, but they usually contain a few sentences about the name itself. This article contains a sentence about the origin of the name, and cannot be turned into a disambig page because there aren't any articles about someone with a given name of Somesh. -- Lear's Fool 11:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete all in the category Category:Indian_given_names--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 13:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Corvus cornix_talk 00:32, 27 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) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for heaven's sake, it's useful information, and appears adequately referenced. Opbeith (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful to whom? —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - useful for us; humans. who knows about the meaning of "Somesh" ss 07:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someshvrm (talk • contribs)
    - I'm a human and it's not useful to me. Please be more specific. —Tamfang (talk) 09:17, 8 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. I'm taking merge as a different form of keep, as a merge can be discussed on the talk page. There is clearly no consensus to make this article a redlink, though. Courcelles 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Kouklina[edit]

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

Subject had three Vogue covers over a brief period, but does not appear to have become a major model as a result, and hasn't garnered much coverage outside directory-type entries. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 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) 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have heard about this girl. The article says she is a model and don't claim anything else. She is a model, that solves the case for me. I think however that the article needs an expansion.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 27 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) 00:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appears to be sufficient coverage (see here) both to establish notability and to provide content for an encyclopaedic article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Vogue cover models as this status seems to be all that we can properly say about her. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 3 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. Courcelles 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Melnik[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill model. No real significant coverage, just directory-type entries like nymag.com and the Fashion Model Directory. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears to be a very prolific in-demand supermodel, in multiple countries no less. [52][53][54][55] and profiled by non-indiscriminate New York Magazine [56][57]. Has appeared on at least three major fashion magazine covers including Vogue. [58][59][60][61]. Just not my definition of "run-of-the-mill model." --Oakshade (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Six magazine covers over a career of five years is minor. Her work is primarily runway shows and editorials, which is minor as well. New York Magazine seeks to create entries for every model it can, and the majority of links you provided are unreliable sources posting copyright violations. I'd say the first link you provided is something, but as coverage goes, it's not much of something. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor" models don't appear on six major fashion magazine covers in multiple countries. New York Magazine only profiles a tiny percentage of models and is very discriminate. And I've posted absolutely no copyright violated material into this article so I don't know what that charge is about. Linking to a blog that shows this person on the cover of Vogue to demonstrate notability doesn't magically mean the model was not on the cover of Vogue and not notable just because the blog might have posted a cover improperly. It would be a copyright violation if we placed copyright material into the article. In fact, magazine covers are generally considered "fair-use" are are not copy-vio in Wikipedia anyway so the point is moot. --Oakshade (talk) 16:09, 20 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, Courcelles 00:20, 26 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) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The New York Magazine constitutes significant coverage in a reliable source, but WP:N requires multiple such sources, and I am unable to find any other significant coverage either in the comments above or in my own searches. Lots of photos of a pretty girl, but nothing about her that would let us write a meaningful article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The New York magazine coverage seems enough while a really thorough search for more sources would require consideration of her name in cyrillic (Елена Мельник). The worst case is that we merge to some summary list like List of Vogue cover models. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 3 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. Courcelles 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Caleb Boggs III[edit]

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

Stub unreferenced BLP - is being elected president of the Republican National Lawyers Association a good claim to notability? I would suggest not, regardless, he still certainly fails the GNG. Ajbpearce (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 26 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) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this man was President of the Republican National Lawyers Association (2006-2008) and is a member of its Board of Governors, and George Bush appointed him US rep at the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)- I found references at first time of searching. Whatever the savouriness or otherwise of his notability, is there really serious doubt as to its substance? Opbeith (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please provide us with some of those references you found. Because I searched and found zilch. The achievements boasted of in the article - being president of an organization, being appointed to a commission - do not amount to notability. This has nothing to do with "savouriness or otherwise", and in fact there is nothing in the article to suggest he is anything but a model citizen. The problem is that he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 9 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. I won't move the article as there is no clear consensus on what the title should be, but anyone can do the move. Davewild (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Wood[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP - no good notability claim - fails WP:BIO WP:GNG Ajbpearce (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to L. Lin Wood, and then improve through normal editing. A search of Google News archives with the proper name yields a flood of in depth references from reliable sources calling him "high-profile", a "top libel lawyer", a "big time attorney", "high-powered", "renowned", a "powerhouse" and so on. We can be sure that the article isn't promotional because a guy like L. Lin Wood couldn't possibly have arranged for the junk that is this article in its current state. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you either link here or add these sources to the article? as I couldn't find anything that could be called a reliable source under either the old name or your proposed rename? Thanks Ajbpearce (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I've added a section on coverage in newspapers and books that consists of quotes in two papers and two books. I don't have time to do a complete rewrite as we are celebrating my wife's birthday, but this should be more than adequate to establish notability and justify a renaming. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 27 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) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cullen328 has provided anchoring references. L. Lin Wood is the name form used at the practice where he's a partner, Bryan Cave affiliates, http://www.bryancave.com/linwood/ but "Lin Wood" occurs frequently, as at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/29/richard.jewell/index.html#cnnSTCText. So you could pick either and redirect from the other. Opbeith (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not satisfied that these added references really meet the criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources. I am grateful for the effort to find them, but these references are really discussing the specific legal cases that attracted media attention and which he has been involved, and discuss Mr Wood incidentally, rather than as subject of these articles (with the possible exception of the Atlanta Buisness Chronicle article, but even here it simply lists his legal CV in the context of a specific case). However, the reailty is that nearly all lawyers at significant firms will represent major clients in their careers and libel lawyers are likley to be involved in cases that attract media attention. I don't think that this coverage is sufficient to really demonstrate that Mr Wood is notable himself outside of the particular cases that have attracted attention. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting hairs, surely? How do you separate out coverage of the case from coverage of the significant outcome achieved by the advocate? Opbeith (talk) 00:08, 5 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. policy is clear that mentions don't cut the mustard for notability but I'm happy to revisit this if someone can find some suitable substantial sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Coal Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

my original nomination stands. nothing in gnews. nothing on Australian major news website www.news.com.au . found 2 hits on another newspaper [62]. article only cites a submission this organisation made to an inquiry, that does not qualify as third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have rewritten the article, removing the stuff that prompted the neutrality concerns and adding some inline references. This organisation may only have 3 Google News hits], but Factiva has over 60, spanning from 2006 through to 2010. Most of them may be from the local Central Coast Express, but there are nine hits from the Daily Telegraph, and even one from the Australian Financial Review. Few of them have much detail on the organisation, but the coverage is more than fleeting (often it is most of the article), so I believe it just meets the general notability guideline. -- Lear's Fool 11:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wallarah 2 Coal Project as it is notable in the context of this project, not independently from the project. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: Nowhere near enough coverage to justify a standalone article on this non-notable NIMBY group. Already mentioned on the Wallarah 2 Coal Project article. Groups like this tend to get a few google news results but it's usually as a passing mention in a news article which is actually about the development they oppose. Similarly, groups like this often get named in government publications about public enquiries &c, but again it's not in-depth coverage. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 1 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) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bobrayner's dismissal of ACA seems a little over-enthusiastic, and coverage not just in newspapers but also in industry media like Coal Geology, International Longwall News, etc., the group's mobilisation of political support and the scope and professionalism of the Solokowski/Hayes submission at http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/pdf/wyonginquiry_submissions_coalalliance.pdf all suggest that the group is active and substantial enough to merit an article in its own right rather than simply be buried in the Project article. Opbeith (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the group being active or making great and professional submissions does not satisfy WP:ORG. This group fails to get indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're dismissing Coal Geology [63] and International Longwall News [64] - I guess you'll take the same view of Parliament of New South Wales Hansard [65]. Opbeith (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a one line mention in International Longwall news and hansard is not indepth coverage. Yes this group opposes the project do we know much else like organisational history? LibStar (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't moved on from the demand for "third party coverage" to "indepth third party coverage". The point of my reference to the mentions in International Longwall News and Coal Geology was to demonstrate that the organisation was one that was considered to merit quoting at the level of industry coverage. The reference to the Chikarovski inquiry submission (commended in a subsequent NSW Hansard[66]) was intended to demonstrate the substantiality of the organisation's activity and achievements. You pass over the reference indicating notability at a political level.

As often with Wikipedia what is expressly stated to be "a guideline" best treated with common sense appears to be applied as a rule. When I come across an issue about Wikipedia content I apply the common sense criteria - is the subject one on which it would be reasonable for me, as a curious but disinterested individual, to come to Wikipedia and hope to find information even of a very basic kind. ACA is a subject of that kind. The organisation continues to campaign on the significant current conflict between competing natural resource priorities in Australia, referred to in the NSW Parliament discussion. Its activities go considerably beyond simple NIMBYism. Even though the article was one with very little substantial content, it was a starting point. There was no pressing need to delete it as contentious or misleading. I've now tried with the limited time at my disposal to expand it a little. There is scope for further relevant expansion. Opbeith (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in relaxing guidelines because it's a slippery slope that enables one to argue a number of things that are not notable. WP guidelines are well established. yes ACA has been mentioned in NSW Parliament but that was by one member and his views (especially as an independent) are purely his own on "second to none". Given that Mr Piper opposes this project, of course he supports ACA stance. I would like more independent sources than this, ie from a person/media outlet with no vested interest for/against the coal project. LibStar (talk) 12:58, 5 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. Davewild (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraz Biogas Power Plant[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. simply being a powerplant is it enough for an article. nothing in gnews [67]. would reconsider if there is substantial coverage in Persian. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Shiraz biogas plant –as far as I know- is the biggest one in the Middle East. I think this article not only should be saved, but have to be improved and expanded. --Knowing guy (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is not a valid reason. Please provide sources then. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first source listed in the article, which was there before the deletion nomination, supports Knowing Guy's statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 27 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, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Phil Bridger points out, Jamejam Online reports that the plant is the Middle East's largest, 25 billion rials invested, Iranian Minister of the Interior attended opening ceremony, 65000 kWh of electricity produced from municipal landfill. Opbeith (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has multiple references, which is better than many other power plants which have article. Passionless (talk) 05:17, 9 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. Courcelles 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Information Technology Bogra(IITB)[edit]

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

I can find no information about this school. There are a few passing references to it, for example at [68] but no usable sources. Feezo (Talk) 12:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Non-notable school. Don't see why we even need AFD for a one-liner. --Ragib (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really meet any of the critera though. Feezo (Talk) 18:51, 29 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, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is not an article. Kudpung (talk) 15:09, 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 There is no argument made that the article's subject is notable, beyond receiving the honor of Member of the Order of the British Empire. As noted by several, receiving the MBE does not invoke the subject-specific guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (i.e. inherent notability). Mandsford 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Monk MBE[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. No evidence of multiple secondary sources. Only coverage is a local news piece about his MBE honor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 26 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) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the important functions of the British Honours System is to acknowledge the notability of long-term but low profile public service.Opbeith (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Low profile" = not notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Govt website www.direct.gov.uk, the 2011 New Year Honours list recognises outstanding achievement and service across the whole of the United Kingdom [69] You seem to be saying that the UK Honours System is an exercise in self-contradiction? Opbeith (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Or Wikipedia kno0ws better? Opbeith (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per this and this and this and this and ... (I could go on), the MBE award is not, per se, a sign of notability. Notability is indicated by significant coverage in multiple sources. Many people receive the MBE with little or no note beyond a blurb in their local newpaper, as is the case with Mr. Monk. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that, I guess, the rule is that Wikipedia knows better. Opbeith (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't think it is a case of "Wikipedia knows better". Rather it is a case of whether "outstanding" is always notable. There is no question that a person who receives the MBE has done some wonderful work or another. They may be rightly proud of their honour. However, that doesn't necessarily make them a valid subject of an encyclopedia article. One could equally argue that anyone who graduates Summa Cum Laude from a top university is outstanding and may be rightly proud of their achievement. However, that sole fact will not merit an encyclopedia article either. Merely performing outstanding things is not the criterion for inclusion. Being noticed by the public at large in a significant fashion is the criterion for inclusion. And, to be honest, the MBE does not represent "notice by the public at large". It requires but a single nomination, and review by a rather low-level functionary in the government. It isn't as if the Queen herself is reviewing the credentials of every MBE recipient. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the fundamental question is "what is the valid subject of an encyclopaedia article?", and in particular of an encyclopaedia such as Wikipaedia which prides itself on its aspiration to openness and comprehensive scope. Notability is a guideline to prevent abuse of the "vanity publishing" kind, but in practice appears to work out as a mechanism for promoting a version of exclusivity/elitist values.

The Honours System is intended to operate in a way that recognises important contributions to the community that have not necessarily attracted general publicity. When individuals are nominated, the notability of their contribution is investigated and evaluated - whatever the level of functionary conducting the review it is conducted in accordance with an objective procedure that could legitimately be claimed to be rather more robust than Wikipedia's procedures. The award of an honour is in effect an official certification that the individual has made a notable contribution to their community/society.

To regard recognition of the achievement as having anything to do with the individual's pride in what they have accomplished is to misunderstand completely the system works and its purpose. Even the award of honours within the government service is based on an objective review of the notability of the individual's contribution to the (officially defined) concept of national welfare. The aim is to acknowledge and honour exceptional contributions for which the individual will not have received other forms of recognition because their contribution has been made within an anonymous system. The award of honours for community service also recognises that notable achievement does not necessarily attract media attention and because it is out in the community may well be overlooked by the administrative structures that take account of the contribution made by officials. It brings official "quality control" to the recognition of discreet notability.

By imposing its own rigid guidelines in a way that overrides, and to be frank seems to seek to discredit, the criteria used by the Honours System, Wikipedia/the body of its contributors is asserting that Wikipedia's own definition of notability is a better/more valid one. It may be necessary for Wikipedia to nail its colours to the mast of superficial value in order to operate in the complex environment that it does, but we shouldn't be under any illusion that the outcome of Wikipedia's procedures is an affirmation of values in the same way that the Honours List is, and those often exclusive/elitist values often seem at odds with the principles that Wikipedia professes. Opbeith (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are what they are. If you don't like them, you are free to start a campaign to change them. But this is not the proper forum for that crusade. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply answered the points you made in answer to my comment, Wikipedia knows better. I know how pointless it is to challenge the accepted wisdom, but responding to your misinterpretation is not a crusade. Opbeith (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The REASON that an MBE cannot, of itself, allow an article to pass the notability guidelines is that if the article doesn't pass WP:N's requirement for "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" then the result of that is that there is simply not enough verifiable information to write an encyclopaedic article about the man, regardless of what awards he may have received. If you can't write more about him than his name, date of birth, and the fact that he won an award, then by any reasonable view he can't be considered notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement or guideline? I think you've missed my point about the central issue of conflicting criteria. As far as the article's current content is concerned, there's more to be written about him based on local coverage, but bear in mind that it's quite hard trying to fill gaps in more than one article at a time while the deletion machine rolls remorselessly on, and the article was only created on 8 December 2010. Opbeith (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the statement by User: Opbeith, "As far as the article's current content is concerned, there's more to be written about him based on local coverage".Hillcountries (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WHAT local coverage? The only sources in the article are both non-reliable, and no one above has linked to any reliable sources, and I can't find any of my own accord. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meridale Youth and Community Centre is a registered charity. Whether or not that makes them "reliable" is a moot point but it does suggest that when they reproduce the Mablethorpe and Sutton leader coverage of the Centre's 40th anniversary at http://www.meridale.co.uk/index.php?page=2&section=2 it's unlikely that they have decided to forge the coverageLocal coverage scanned from the Louth Leader supplement (LL is NE Lincolnshire circulation weekly). Opbeith (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question is not whether the coverage in the M&S Leader is forged or not (clearly it isn't), but whether that coverage amounts to significant coverage in multiple independent sources as required by the guidelines. Coverage of local events by local newspapers generally does not amount to significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, WikiDan61, you're diverting the argument elsewhere. One thing at a time, please. That was me telling DustFormsWords about the local coverage that s/he was so excited about not being there. I'm not trying to make out that this constitutes significant coverage, because if you remember, the point that I was trying to communicate to you was that Wikipedia rejects the notion enshrined in the UK Honours List principle of recognition for long term community service that low profile achievement is notable. It seems quite possible that there will be minimal significant media coverage of Mr Monk and other individuals who have given substantial service to a local community over a long period (disregarding the BBC and the London Gazette) but that is the whole point of the Honours List principle, media coverage is not an absolute indicator of notability. As I said before, there may be sound practical reasons - preventing abuse and misrepresentation - why Wikipedia adopts exclusive guidelines. But the UK Honours List offers another valid principle for recognising notability. If Wikipedia rejects it, like it or not that's a statement that Wikipedia's principles are incompatible with those of the UK Honours List. When you rigorously impose one set of principles and reject another rather than accepting that they can coexist, you're saying that for the purposes in hand one set of principles is better than another (by "you", I don't mean you personally but the Wikipedia participants who believe that UK Honours List criteria are not acceptable). I simply don't see a logical way round that. When Wikipedia expunges individuals recognised as notable by the UK Honours List it is applying its own set of values in preference and implicitly rejecting those embodied in the UK Honours List procedure. If we have to accept that John Monk isn't good enough for Wikipedia when he is for the UK Honours List, well that's the rulebook. But then can't we be honest about the reality embodied in that rulebook? As I said, Wikipedia thinks it knows better. Have the courage of your convictions, at least, and acknowledge that your nomination defines your Wikipedia.Opbeith (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a "he". I'm not convinced M&S Leader is a reliable source, and hence can't provide verifiability and therefore is probably of no use in writing an encyclopaedic article, whether or not the topic is notable. Even were it a reliable source, it doesn't provide significant coverage of this man, and the linked version of it appears on a most definitely non-reliable site. (I don't mean it's unreliable in that it's dishonest, I mean that it's unreliable in that we can't be sure it's not prone to honest mistake, presenting information out of context, or running strange practical jokes.) But thank you for taking the time to explain. BTW, "notability" is not a criterion for receiving the Order of the British Empire, or any one of its objectives, and to the extent that there ARE UK honours aimed at notability, they are using "notability" in a different sense to Wikipedia - it would refer to civic notability, but we're talking about encyclopaedic notability. They're different concepts and hence there's no reflection on either party in them not agreeing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DFW, I don't argue with you that the source might be considered "non-reliable" in the sense you you use of "the reader not being able to be absolutely certain". Most sites that might be described as reliable are nothing of the sort. Even major news sources tend to be riddled with inaccuracies that the reader who knows something of the subject can detect. "Reliability" is a convention - we accept that the reliable source is unlikely to be making errors in bad faith or inordinate quantity until we're proved wrong. Here there is no real reason to assume non-reliability in relation to the subject matter, and the essential point here is that information is available and in a form that is unlikely to be significantly untrustworthy. (I'm now referring simply to the detail of the article, not the validity of inclusion)

I do disagree that notability is not a criterion for the award of honours at all the various levels in the UK Honours List. In his introduction to the most recent report on the UK Honours system (accessible via http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Honoursawardsandmedals/DG_067909 ), Sir Hayden Phillips, the report's author, identified two strands of contribution to national life, service and distinction. In both "the standard, and the consequent criteria, should be high". With regard to notbaility of service, which is what we're arguing about with regard to John Monk, Phillips says, "In terms of service an honour should not just go with a job well done or because someone has reached a particular level – but because an individual has in plain terms ‘gone the extra mile’ in the contribution they have made." The different levels of award broadly reflect local or national contributions, and levels of achievements. "Judgements are not moderated by the Civil Service alone [in the procedure Phillips outlines on the webpage at the URL I've given] but substantially informed by a large number of independent and distinguished experts in a variety of fields of national life."

Whatever the occasional failings of the UK Honours system it cannot be said to be substantially unreliable. Its reliability is ensured by the accountability of a transparent system with well-established procedures for confirming notability.

So the award of an honour signifies the formal taking note of a level of achievement that is out of the ordinary and presence on the UK Honours List signals that robust criteria have been satisfied. The question is whether those criteria are inadequate for Wikipedia's purposes, and if they are is the reason essential to Wikipedia's nature?

Once the pragmatic issues of misrepresentation and frivolity. are dealt with by establishing a robust procedure any other "encyclopaedic" policy is about establishing the character of the encyclopaedia - the scope of its inclusivity. There is nothing absolute about "encyclopaedic notability". It's simply a term describing the capacity to satisfy the notability criteria that serve a particular encyclopaedia's definition of its purposes - what it chooses to include or exclude.

If Wikipedia is unable to live with the kind of notability established by a socially representative, publicly accountable body whose procedures are painstaking and reliable, that is a policy choice. If Wikipedia cannot live with the presence of John Monk that is the nature of Wikipedia's encyclopaedic character. But then contributors should be honest and accept that they have decided WP's character should be exclusive and elitist, based on arbitrarily chosen principles. It is simply a decision that WP should not be as open as it might justifiably be.

@Opbeith: You may be correct in asserting that the UK Honours System represents a de facto assertion of notability; that only select individuals notable for their service to their communities are so honoured. However, countless discussions on Wikipedia have countered the argument that an MBE is inherently notable. If you feel otherwise, you should bring the topic to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to see if you can bring about a change in the guidelines. However, the guidelines being what they are today, Mr Monk's article fails to meet the criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61, there's a distinction between the words "countered" and "resolved".

Truly. I had no intention that my remark would resolve the discussion. I merely intended to keep the discussion grounded in Wikipedia policy. It is Wikipedia's policies that govern Wikipedia's content, not the British Honours System's. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 9 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. Courcelles 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-Plane Mobile[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Disputed Prod. Possible WP:COI of author. noq (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 26 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) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find sources to establish the mobile version as independently notable from the main game. Everything is either first-party or blogs. » scoops “5x5„ 18:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm just an ordinary Wikipedia user actually interested in information on xplane, but there is nothing there that isn't identical in form and content to the manufacturer's website. The software might be notable, but the current form of the wikipedia article is an ad, and not useful. - No login, not a regular contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.20.94 (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 15:12, 6 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. Courcelles 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Bagh[edit]

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

I assume this is about a building. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been the recipient of an award from a national body indicating cultural importance. However earlier versions of the article seem to have included extensive amounts COI and promotional content.WhaleyTim (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 26 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) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as so often with non-US/Canada/UK/Australia subjects it's not too hard to find suitable references if you actually look - eg at Know AP (Know Andhra Pradesh) Aziz Bagh is described as one of Hyderabad's Architectural Splendours. http://www.knowap.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1039&Itemid=69 Opbeith (talk) 19:10, 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. Courcelles 00:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euloge Awitor[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:09, 28 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) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Without a pro league appearance, or significant coverage, he fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 13:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:00, 5 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. Courcelles 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nascimento[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has enough references to sustain it, and he was the top scoring Canadian Soccer League scorer of the year 2008, that qualifies him for an article in my opinion and is the youngest CSL player to win the MVP honor. TheCheesyKiddo, Talk to the hand!

The references are nothing but run-of-the-mill transfer news, which fails WP:NTEMP. Is top-scoring in the CSL the same as top-scoring in the MFL League, for example? Both are non-professional leagues...Giant Snowman 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Without an appearance in a fully pro league, and no significant coverage, he clearly fails all notability guidelines relevant to footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 1 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) 23:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick Google search doesn't seem to yield anything to make him pass WP:GNG Spiderone 13:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:01, 5 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 No argument has been made that Saarelma would be notable without benefit of WP:ATHLETE, which confers subject specific notability upon "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league". As Jimbo points out, the Veikkausliiga, although it is Finland's premier league, is listed among "Top level leagues which are not fully professional" Wikipedia:FPL, although it is 93% professional. User:Nfitz has a good point, in that an "all or nothing" requirement excludes Finland (and for that matter, New Zealand, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Canada), while admitting players all players in a good deal of the world's minor leagues, such as America's USL Second Division. However, use of common sense is going to be something that the writers of policy must do, not the appliers of policy. If the status of Veikkausliiga were to change, or the rule were to be changed from 100% to "at least 90%", Saarelma would be able to bypass WP:PEOPLE. Until then, he cannot come in under WP:ATHLETE. Mandsford 17:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Saarelma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - seeing as the article was actually deleted using the first afd nomination, and im presuming the article is pretty similar now than it was in the original, wouldn't it fall under speedy deletion criteria category G4; "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion"? Eddie6705 (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. The last nomination was four years ago, and Mr. Saarelma's career has advanced considerably since then, making the article sufficiently different to not fall under G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh i see. Well that makes sense. In terms of this nomination, as pointed out above, he still fails notability as he has not played for a professional club. Therefore Delete. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in a pro league BanRay 10:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which league was that? Eddie6705 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about Veikkausliiga, please see my comment here. The one that was successfully ignored by the nominator who later switched to using "lack of significant media coverage" as a rationale for deletion. Veikkausliiga pays an average salary of over €20K, with one third of players earning more than €33K. It is a professional league. BanRay 14:21, 29 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) 23:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks BanRay for your previous comment about the Anglocentrism reflected in particular in Wikipedia AfDs. I've just posted above here at the Paolo Pires AfD. It's systemic. AfD nominators are often unconcerned about the wider consequences of their relentless pursuit of the letter of the law within the closed universe of their experience. The possibility that there's a wider world of more and less important information out there, that we depend on people with more limited command of English, more limited access to technical resources and less extensive Wikipedia skills to bring to our notice, is excluded. The limited number of people concerned about the purging of that information can't spend all their time running after brush fires - they give up trying. Similarly the contributors see their efforts deleted and give up on English Wikipedia. Maybe we just have to wait till the Chinese Wikipedia is the one that all the world wants to read and then maybe we'll see the world like others see us. Opbeith (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is every club in Veikkausliiga professional? If so then I don't see a problem, he would pass WP:ATHLETE. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in a professional league and fails WP:GNG also Spiderone 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to the source at WP:FPL, the Veikkausliiga is only 93% professional as of 2010. --Jimbo^[online] 01:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays in the top team of an almost completely professional league in the highest level of the countries pyramid. WP:UCS indicates that's close enough. He also seems to have significant coverage in Finnish and Estonian sources. Deleting this article would be a clear case of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not appeared in a fully-professional league. Standard run-of-the-mill stats websites and match reports fail WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 17:07, 9 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 Pakistan Student Association. If the redirect gets reverted without consensus being reached first then it can be protected. Davewild (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PAKSA[edit]

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

This is an orphaned stub on a non-notable student organization. I was a bit surprised to see it has been on Wikipedia for several years, perhaps it seems notable because it is a special-interest organization. My recommendation -- delete and redirect to Pakistan Student Association. Danski14^(talk) 18:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know about redirecting because Pakistan Student Association has been unsourced for years. But just for the record, you don't need to bring an article to AfD in order to redirect it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: true, in this case though I was hoping to get the article deleted first, then redirected. I wouldn't want someone to revert the redirect. (which I've seen happen) Plus, perhaps technically it isn't the correct redirect, but it seems right. Danski14^(talk) 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone reverts an ordinary editorial action such as a redirect, one follows the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Talk:PAKSA is right there to be used. AFD is not a big hammer for winning editorial disputes. Uncle G (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see, well, this doesn't have anything to do with a particular editorial dispute. I just saw the page and thought it should be deleted. Danski14^(talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. --Kudpung (talk) 09:39, 27 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) 23:58, 1 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. Courcelles 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj Kulkarni[edit]

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

Firstly, the only references in this article are to blogspot, violating WP:RS and WP:N. Secondly, considering that the article claims Niraj Kulkarni has done award-nominated work on the videogame Crysis, it's curious that a google search for 'niraj kulkarni crysis' only yields Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors and a few facebook and linkedin pages. Thirdly, curious that nobody by this name appears in Crysis' credits. Suspect hoax, but not quite confident enough to slap it with a {{db-hoax}} and have done with it. Previously PRODded by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) with the reason "The article does not make it clear how this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The article lacks reliable, independent sources verifying the information here, and I was not able to find appropriate sources with my own search" (diff), but dePRODded without comment by Rahulshakor (talk · contribs) (diff). CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 26 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) 23:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 15:12, 6 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 List of Arthur characters. The history is available for anyone to merge any relevant information through to the list. Davewild (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Baxter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buster Baxter

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

Topic lacks proper notability or sources, and only covers the subject within an in-universe perspective. All substantial material about the subject is already covered in List of Arthur characters. StarScream1007 ►Talk 19:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article (and other related articles) would be best as a section in List of Arthur characters. Having its own article is not necessary, but given the notability of the series inclusion in a list is necessary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please express yourself unambigiously at AFD. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes for how to do so. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:DBAD. There's nothing ambiguous about Crisco's vote, and in any case "The automated tools like it when you say Delete instead of Support (Deletion)" is a politer way of making the same point. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know, that page you linked to also says, "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move — especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well played good sir! The comment came largely as a response to a similarly impolite comment of Uncle G's in another discussion but two wrongs don't make a right, so consider the offensive portion retracted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Arthur characters. As stated above, all the useful information is there already, but it's a plausible search term so a redirect would be preferable to deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:34, 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) 23:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Arthur characters and/or Postcards from Buster. I can find no evidence of this character having notability independent from the shows he appears in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Arthur characters. No independent notability outside of the shows he appears in. Harry Blue5 (talk) 08:36, 7 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. Courcelles 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usama Mukwaya[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. (The two movies he has appeared in Iron love & Pain of lies will probably be deemed non-notable. ) A Google search for "Screen Writers of Uganda" brings up nothing independent of Usama. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:RHaworth makes a point about this fellow and his films being deleted. I see this as most likely per WP:UNKNOWNHERE. One might hope someone with access to news and review sources in Uganda might come forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or even WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 23:44, 30 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) 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other Ugandan actors do have some reference on the web. Without the possibility of WP:V this page should not be kept. --Triwbe (talk) 15:46, 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 no consensus. There is still no consensus in this AFD with disagreement over it's notability. There is some support for a merge and this closure should not prevent agreement being reached on the talk page for a merge. Davewild (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cowznofski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one source. No relevant hits found anywhere. Last AFD from 2008 was "no consensus" with all but one "keep" !vote being a simple WP:ITSNOTABLE. The only sources turned up in the last AFD were tangential one-sentence mentions and/or primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow. Another one of those sparkling older AfDs where the closing admin just counted votes rather than examine the policy arguments, which TPH correctly states comes down to "It's notable because, err, I think it probably ought to be, if I bothered to look at the article, which would have taken more than the 5 seconds I want to spend collecting another edit" statements. This time, however, let's stand on the real black-letter relevant guideline, which is that editors seeking to keep an article at AfD are required to provide in-line citations attesting to the subject's notability, shall we? I don't believe there are any. Ravenswing 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit rich to talk about reading the prior AFD discussion and not bothering to look at things, and in the same (metaphorical) breath not notice the 5 sources that Hobit pointed to in that very same discussion, or the fact that Hobit and TenPoundHammer agreed that a merger was acceptable. So we really shold be asking why we are back here at AFD. TenPoundHammer agreed with a merger. Why didn't xe enact what xe agreed with? Why has xyr only edit since the last time that xe nominated this article for deletion, and then agreed to a merger, been to nominate it for deletion again? It took three edits to nominate it for deletion this second time. It would have taken two to do what TenPoundHammer actually agreed with the last time around. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tell you what, Uncle: you argue the things you want to argue, and I'll argue the things I want to argue. I am not required to address what Hobit and TPH opined was an acceptable way out, nor agree with it, nor parse out their motives for not performing a merger. That being said, it's quite reasonable to infer that if I don't believe there are any cites attesting to the subject's notability, I must not think much of the sources proffered in the previous AfD. Not only would it be reasonable, it'd be accurate, because I don't. Ravenswing 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not reasonable at all when it isn't what you wrote at all. What you wrote was that the policy arguments boiled down to a bare assertion, when in fact the policy arguments quite clearly did not boil down to that at all, and not only did involve pointing to sources but even involved reaching an agreement on merger. Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable meme from a particular time and place, including but not limited to the early history of Mad magazine and its Alfred E. Neuman character. There are also tie-ins to Ernie Kovacs whose exploration awaits a dedicated researcher. The nominator's statement that there are no relevant hits to be found anywhere is mistaken, unless it is qualified by the later sentence that the hits appear to be brief, in which case I think the cumulation of relatively brief hits is ultimately sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Say that again? All I heard was "blah blah blah, WP:ITSNOTABLE, I hate the nominator." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you need to wash out your ears, because in fact Newyorkbrad said nothing at all about xyr view of you. Uncle G (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NYB, do you have any sources you'd care to proffer to back up your assertion of notability? That being said, if this meme is as central as all of that to the Neuman character, why isn't it at all mentioned in the lengthy and heavily footnoted Neuman article? Ravenswing 17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Condense, and Merge with Mad Magazine. Qworty (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pick one. You cannot have both. If you opine for both then your argument will simply have to be discounted as self-contradictory. Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though merge with Alfred E. Newman might be reasonable, I think the term predates AEN. I can no longer see the Tribune article reference in the article , but it appears to to be solely about AEN and Cowznofski. [70] also seems to have a fair bit, but again behind a pay wall. Disclaimer: I was notified on my talk page about this discussion. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 30 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) 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alfred E. Newman. Give the readers an article with some substance. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no pressing need to delete given. But please everybody, Alfred E. Neuman with a "u". Opbeith (talk) 23:32, 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. Courcelles 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Rampage[edit]

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

Speedy Deletion was declined because there was a trace of significance, however there is no trace of notability or sourcing. Dusti^*poke* 04:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSPORTS. Non-notable minor league American football team. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Delete Per Dusti Dusti<hey>TALK</hey> 04:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Erpert. Liking someone is not a ground for an article. (Aside - if you want real physical football, try rugby league or even union.) Peridon (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS When you use colours, could you cancel them when you get to the end? I just found I'd posted in red and I don't even know how to... 8-( Peridon (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, I can't agree with the physical thing, but yes, this article sucks and is definately NOT notable. Themane2 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on how to improve with notability or sourcing; still a work-in-progress. Disagree with comment about Minor League football not being physical--it's as real as any other level of football (and moreso than rugby). Rampage is only 1 of 9 teams in Iowa and Webster City is the second smallest town to have a team; all competition is from big cities such as Des Moines, the Quad Cities, Lincoln (NE), Omaha (NE)... Blaze finished as Runners-up to Oklahoma Thunder in World Bowl IV of the WFL. Again, please advise (new to Wikiworld). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper of Archives (talk • contribs) 00:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Advice Hi newbie! I've been here for 22,000 edits and I still feel new sometimes too! My recommendation is that you look into WP:USERSPACE and edit articles there first for a while, then bring them in to the "mainspace" -- userpsace is designed for development of articles and is a great place to get started.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any implied lack of physicality doesn't apply here and has no bearing. What does have bearing are the following: 1) Conflict of interest WP:COI comes up as the article appears to have been written by someone from the team or otherwise closely connected; 2) Failure to meet notability standards (WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT); 3) Contains original research (WP:OR); 4) miscellaneous violations of WP:GROUP (group is too local for coverage in Wikipedia) and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not your free web hosting server); and then there's the links in the article that are just plain wrong! I'm reasonably sure that musician Drake Bell, American gospel folk group Joe and Eddie, Dateline NBC reporter Chris Hansen, actor Clint Howard, and any of the names on the disambiguation page for Brian Miller are not associated with this team. The article should be blanked immediately and moved to incubation because of that alone.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After seeing the above post, I've delinked every person's name in the article. Most were red links anyway, but none of the blues seemed even remotely likely to be playing for this team. I've left the red linked teams alone, as they aren't causing confusion. I think the article creator just wikilinked everyone. probably thinking that was the thing to do. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 3 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. L Faraone 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D River State Recreation Site[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this could be covered in the article for D River itself, and it seems that that article could use the information. Themane2 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is about the state park; the D River is a minor aspect of it. Expansion of the D River and Devils Lake articles will evolve in entirely different directions. I've expanded this article somewhat as a research exercise, but also to satisfy myself that the river and park are distinct subjects. —EncMstr (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable.------Themane2 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Valfontis (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Nomination does not give a valid deletion criterion (although non-notability is implied). Otherwise this could be covered with a merge proposal. But keep per EncMstr and his expansion to add info about it being a notable kite-flying site. And it passes notability guidelines as it is mentioned in multiple reliable independent sources. See Google search, Google books, and Google News. Valfontis (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- The article isn't too bad, and it's a state park. This should stay. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite a valid reason for keeping per the discussion guidelines? As far as I know, state parks don't get a "free pass" like some things in WP:OUTCOMES, and I looked carefully. And the article's quality isn't supposed to be a factor. Thanks! Valfontis (talk)

Oh. Well I just read your reason to keep and I agree nearly exactly with it. And by "the article isn't too bad," I meant to say, "it has enough references," but of course no one would know that… sorry. :-) Anyway, there are citations for the content, so original research doesn't have to be used to give enough information, and it receives enough coverage that it would be considered notable. Keep per EncMstr as well. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:39, 3 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.