Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 25

< 24 January	26 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Rosellini[edit]

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

Online resume/CV of an otherwise non-notable individual. Fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marked for speedy delete -- no indication of significance, merely promotional. EEng (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible as a spambio. The sources are very trivial (at least, the ones that actually do mention him, which is very few). Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. Ulimately reads like a hagiography. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined Not overly spammy, and the sources, whilst not the best, are sufficient for A7. Let the AfD finish. Ged UK 20:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Poole[edit]

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

No notability outside the company he founded, AccuRev (which is of questionable notability itself but the discussion of which I will leave for another editor/day). Subject has apparently edited this article, indicating the WP:COI that is apparent from the hagiographic tone. Ultimately the only actual sourcing is a couple of articles in which is interviewed/mentioned in the context of his company and its product. Nothing substantive out there per WP:GNG to warrant a WP:BLP Kinu ^t/_c 23:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Blanche, Blanche DuBois (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sourcing cited at the article or found on Google News search. --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Redirect page created to a dab page by author before this AfD's close. Can some editor kindly clean up the dab page? Right now, simply closing this AfD as no action required. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional western medicine[edit]

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

Article as it stands is currently original research and synthesis. It has two sources, but neither of them refer to the concept of "traditonal western medicine." I can see some potential avenues this article could take, but all of them are problematic. Using the article to describe historical western medicine would duplicate the existing article at History of Medicine. Using the article to describe current pseudoscientific practices might fall afoul of WP:FRINGE and would still fail to fix the underlying synthesis problem of this article, as there are no sources describing a unified concept of "traditional western medicine." Therefore I am nominating this article for deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ - It is not original research, but does need RS. I don't have an overwhelming care in keeping this article I created, but I will point out that it is not original research. Google sholar turns up about a thousand results. A google serach of "traditional western medicine" turns up a half million resultss. So the expression is by no means a product of original research. A problem is that the expression is mostly used by alternative medicine practitioners to refer to modern medicine, while only esoterically used by historians to refer to pre-scientific method occultist European medicine (bleeding, humors, etc.). The usage by alternative medicine people is used to imply that what they are doing is medicine, but non-traditional, in that they don't use the scientific method, or whatever is in their heads. (I am a science-based, or evidence-based medicine person.) The article needs RS, but should stay so people can understand the different uses. It is not original research. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment What we have here is a collection of random, sourced bits of historical medicine, but nothing to tie them together. Give me one source that describes the scope of "traditional western medicine" different from simply historical western medicine. The absence of such a source is why I nominated this article for deletion. Most of the sources you cite are primary sources, and tying together primary sources is the definition of original research. I'm not saying the subject is inherently non-notable, but the article needs a secondary source that ties together its various sections and differentiates it from History of medicine. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article because of shifting use of the expression by alternative medicine practicioners. First they say that they are an alternative to traditional western medicine and are measuring helth by a different standard, referring to modern science-based medicine, then they bash TWM by using the expression to refer to historical European pseudoscientific occult-based medicine. I am not going to call any alternative medicine site an RS, but others may. Google Scholar search is probably the best place to find RS, not just a Google search, which turns up mostly alternative medicine sites. Again, I have no strong feelings about trying to keep. (I do feel strongly to keep material in other articles, e.g. bad faith.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ and redirect to History of medicine, I think would be best. I see that HkFnsNGA is continuing to work on the article, and will check back in a few days. The sources I find refer to Western medicine using that traditional science thing on the one hand, and a grabbag of humors, blood-letting, and heroic medicine on the other. The first usage is more a coincidence of terms than something we could base an article on. The second might have some legs, but I am unconvinced that this could be done without duplicating the scope of History of medicine. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The new dab page works for me - keep. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with a redirect, followed by an addition to that article with the expression "TWM" and maybe a mention of the use of the expression by alt med folks as a "pejoritive". They frequently use the expression to mean "close minded", as if they have a majical new kind of standard of evidence or methodology that TWM is ignorant of. Maybe they do and I am being close minded. Now I need some coffee because I am out of "energy". HkFnsNGA (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. not notable alone Someone65 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page and did most of the edits. I redirected Traditional western medicine to a disambiguation page, which directs to articles for the two different uses. I am marking this page resolved. HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This debate does not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (but mostly-good idea, and kudos for showing initiative). - 2/0 (cont.) 07:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirected before close in violation of WP:GAFD Anarchangel (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While in many cases redirecting during an AfD can be highly disruptive, in this case both articles were created and primarily edited by the same editor, and it does not appear to be an attempt to evade community process. I believe that we should take the creation of the dab page as a good faith attempt to take on board the concerns raised here (disclosure: some of those concerns are mine, obviously). As the edit histories are sequential without overlap, it might be worthwhile to do a history merge, putting the new page at the unmodified title; per WP:DAB, foo (disambiguation) should go at foo when there is no primary topic article to occupy the pagename. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article has been speedily deleted as requested by the author (CSD G7). See the last comment below. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig E. Carter[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. ttonyb (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - ~~Undecided at this point. Enough assertion of notability to decline speedy and I have cleared the worst of the promotionalism. Worth giving him the seven days this AfD will take to make his case.~~ Safiel (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not located any coverage of the subject and thus am going to urge delete at this time. Safiel (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will also note that the article creator is evidently a student of the subject of the article. Safiel (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article states that he won "World Champion Titles (Four in Kumite)". If true he might be notable, but I can't seem to find anything independent of his own website confirming this. Travelbird (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems impossible to find any independent coverage of him, despite extensive searching. Several of the references are links to pages not even mentioning him, some to pages barely mentioning him, and in addition most of them are not independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even thought I am deeply honored by my staff, students/ former and present I do not find a need to have the "wikipedia" group validate me. Any reputation I may or may not have is based solely on the work I have done in martial arts development and I have been honored for that work by said organizations. I do not claim to be notable and truly have no interest in being so as it would only distract from the development of programs. Take it for what you will and do with as you please. Again thank you to all the students and staff behind this movement. Yours in Training; GM CE Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.55.73.23 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This [1] Asian Journal article verifies the claim that Craig Carter is a Grandmaster and that he has been inducted into the Martial Artists’ “Masters Hall of Fame.” Xajaso (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A single article does not establish notability nor is being a grandmaster part of the criteria the notability. ttonyb (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A passing mention in a local newspaper article is hardly significant coverage. The article's claims are noteworthy and would clearly make him notable if they could be verified, but I found no independent support of his notability. I do appreciate GM Carter's perspective on things. Papaursa (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure why the pictures have been removed but we do have the full rights and they are released for public use. We also added a few more links that verify the different information. Some information about the teaching of military is also hard to come by for obvious reasons. Ntcpfma (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The pictures were removed because there was no indication they you or anyone else had, "...full rights and they are released for public use." They were appeared to have been taken from a copyrighted website lacking a license compatible with Wikipedia requirements. ttonyb (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ok we have been reviewing many of the martial artist pages on wikipedia and found many page like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Roop that have no outside sources what so ever... and our founder can for example be read about in the Asian Journal and then cross checked with the Master's Hall of Fame directly at http://www.mastershalloffame.org/content/ambassadors and at http://www.mastershalloffame.org/content/mhof-inductee-list-2008 as well as other internet based press releases regarding the Hall of Fame every year from 2008, 2009, 2010.... just wanted to share that while the editors are reviewing things... Ntcpfma (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The existence of other articles has no bearing on this article. All articles must be evaluated on their own merits. It could very well be there are other articles that should be deleted because they do not meet Wikipedia criteria. Please see WP:WAX. BTW - Press releases are not considered valid secondary sources. ttonyb (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another useful page relating to the argument based on other articles existing is Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our founder has asked that we remove the article as validation from non-martial arts practitioners is not with his wishes. We do feel he is notable in our industry but please remove/delete any and all material regarding him as per his request...thank you

Ntcpfma (talk) 21:01, 27 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muse (Valery Leontiev album)[edit]

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

Unsourced, written in an unencyclopedic manner, and weak, if any, claim to notability Sven Manguard Wha? 21:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE the nominator has not given valid reasons to propose deletion, but instead indicated that the article needs improvement. There are already edit tags to that effect. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response For the record, there are no acceptable sources for this album at this time that I could find. There, I said it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe this article is a straight translation of the existing Russian article, hence why it reads so strangely. Singer himself is, indeed, one of the most popular old-school pop-singers of USSR and Russia. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:04, 16 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) 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to have to learn Russian before I can be absolutely sure, but it looks to me that the artist is notable, this is his debut album (called Муза in Russia), and it seems to be acceptable under "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." WP:NALBUM Wickedjacob (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Execpt that it fails the "mentioned in multiple reliable sources" part, as far as I can see. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I can't find any either. But the artist is indisputably notable, and the album was released before the days of the internet, so its not out of the question that the coverage is there and just not easy to find. And while notability isn't inherited, it is common practice to allow for articles that feature artists that later became notable. See The_Moon_Is_Down_(album), The_Himalayans, Goo_Goo_Dolls_(album). I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is far from an airtight argument, but I would hate for us to be applying a different standard to American artists just because it easier to find coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:54, 18 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:57, 25 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. As a "soft" delete, this decision may be reversed upon request at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight of Spring[edit]

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

Unsourced, no assertion of notability, contents duplicated on the page for Sodagreen. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator and I have already discussed the reasoning behind this nomination, which was copied verbatim from a previous PROD. Using prose like "Unsourced, no assertion of notability", indicates poor quality as the reason for deletion. According to WP:NOTCLEANUP, that is not a criterion for deletion. Meanwhile, according to WP:BEFORE #9, a lack of sources IS a criterion for deletion, if the nominator makes a good faith effort to determine that such sources do not exist. The nom's prose gives no indication that this was done. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response For the record, there are no acceptable sources for this album at this time that I could find. There, I said it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 17 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:55, 25 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomparable Beauty[edit]

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

Unsourced, no assertion of notability, contents duplicated on the page for Sodagreen. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE the nominator has not given valid reasons to propose deletion, but instead indicated that the article needs improvement. There are already edit tags to that effect. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response For the record, there are no acceptable sources for this album at this time that I could find. There, I said it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 17 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:54, 25 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. Merging into Uechi-ryū is an option, to be worked out as an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pangai-noon[edit]

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

A non notable martial art without third person sources stating why its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't see why this article exists. In the first line it says the art no longer exists and the final paragraph says it's questionable that it ever existed. It might be worth a mention in the Uechi Ryu article, but since it's already in that article I think this article adds nothing. Astudent0 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or merge into Uechi-ryu~~ based on user Jmcw's improvements. Astudent0 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This style is described by Mark Bishop in Okinawan Karate, Second Edition isbn 978-0-8048-3205-2. The style is notable because it is the foundation of Uechi-ryū. The current article is POV by some break-away students of Uechi-ryū. The article needs citations, wiki editing and NPOV. jmcw (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have re-written the article with references. Please review it again. jmcw (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much improved, but since it's already in the uechi-ryu article does it really need its own article or should this content be merged into that article? Astudent0 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we save any paper? Do we get any points for the number of articles we delete? jmcw (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We weren't talking about deleting the info. I simply was asking where the best place to put it was. Thanks for the sarcasm. Astudent0 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the sarcasm. Why do you think this teacher should not have an article? jmcw (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I now think the current article is fine as a stand-alone. Astudent0 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! jmcw (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The old article deserved to be deleted, but this version is sourced and shows notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Uechi-ryū, unless expanded. Janggeom (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is reasonable, perhaps even preferable, but that can always be done later. The main thing is that the information should be kept. Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 23 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:51, 25 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 Boldly redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Train Your Dragon (TV Series)[edit]

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

Way too early for such an article. A producer is aiming for a 2012 premiere, but he says "But I’m not positive". Source says the TV series "in the very earliest stages" and it's "really in the early going. We have a sort of plan for it, but the scripts are just starting." Very premature. Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to How to Train Your Dragon (film)#Television series, which already discusses the proposed series but doesn't include the new source.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, a much better idea. Don't know why I didn't think of that! How can I close this AfD? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copper L-aspartate[edit]

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

Non-notable nutritional supplement. The refs only support that it exists. The chemical-indexing leads to minimal database entries that do not have lit refs supporting notability. Heck, half the database entries don't even agree on the structure or formula (see my recent edit-summaries to it). The lack of notability applies to each possibility, the lack of specificity just makes the article that much more hopeless. DMacks (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination and also per my previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L-Arginine Malate. This article was created to give legitimacy to this commercial website's product, not to document a notable supplement. Them From Space 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I like to see Wikipedia expanded with content about chemical compounds, I just don't see anything that suggests that this compound meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. ChemNerd (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Michaela McAreavey[edit]

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

Delete unless someone can prove notability at which time I will withdraw the nom.

I am not a cold-hearted person. I know what it is like to lose someone you love and who is irreplaceable. I was saddened when I read online about the murder (not on Wikipedia). I assumed a good portion of Mickey Harte's page would deal with his daughter's killing. However, I must question whether this murder is notable enough to warrant its own article. There are thousands of murders and millions of tragedies which occur every day, not all of which are inherently notable, especially when the victim, with all due respect, was not well-known in her own right when she was alive, although obviously her father is, which is why I think the salient text should/can easily be merged into her father's article. I know the timing could be better, but if I put it off I'll forget, and we may as well nip this contentious matter in the bud now. I am sure her family couldn't care less about what's going on on Wikipedia anyway. [email protected] (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have seen worse deletions than this, but I still believe that we shouldn't be losing articles that are widely covered in many news sources. In keeping with BLP1E this article is about the murder, rather than the woman. You might suggest merging it, but how does that allow for proper handling of the content? Suppose a suspect in Mauritius starts saying that he was "framed" and used as a scapegoat, and disputes evidence along the line of the O.J. Simpson bloody glove/DNA evidence arguments. Do we really go from the disputed evidence -> Mauritanian suspect -> Murder of Michaela McAreavey -> Michaela McAreavey -> Mickey Harte, all because Harte plays some kind of sport? I don't think that is any way to organize an encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I first noticed this article when it was named 'Michaela McAreavey' and considered tagging as AfD. However the title was corrected to its present name (possibly even re-corrected). The issue is of sufficient note to merit an article. Public reaction to the murder may yet impact significantly on the national economy of Mauritius, which depends so much on tourism and its reputation as a safe destination for tourists. Perhaps this point should be elaborated in the article. As 'non-political' murders go, that is significant. RashersTierney (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing what is beyond WP:NOTNEWS in this article. Murders are unfortunately common news, sometimes it happens to people related to more famous individuals, so it gets a bit more coverage than other murders, but there's no real lasting or particular impact of this event.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When Prime Ministers issue 'personal apologies',and as a result are prompted to state they "favour(ed) the return of the death penalty for murder", that event is certainly notable by any standard. RashersTierney (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This case has recieved alot of media coverage. Michaela has appeared in media before. I say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The present political fallout alone makes this crime notable and I was familiar with the crime before I looked at this AfD, I actually had no idea the woman was related to someone well-known in the UK until I read it here in Wikipedia. To me the gist of this article seems similar to Natalee Holloway, a non-notable person in her own right who then became notable through the manner of her death and subsequent events. Shearonink (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out to Shearonink that Mickey Harte, Mrs. McAreavey's father, is not "well-known in the UK", although he is well-known in much of Northern Ireland. [email protected] (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article says her "funeral ... was attended by thousands of mourners, including the President of Ireland ... First Minister of Northern Ireland ... and deputy First Minister.... It was notable for the extent to which mourners from across the political and religious divide came to pay their respects." With reliable sources to back that up, she (or at least her death) is notable. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and I knew that someone would mention the funeral, I strongly disagree that the murder is notable just because Adams, McGuinness and Mary McAleese attended the victim's funeral, particularly since attending (certain) funerals is a de facto part of their jobs. A person's notability is usually not derived from the attendees at his/her funeral or even necessarily by being the victim or related to the victim of a murder or other crime which makes headlines. Does anyone whose funeral is picketed by the lunatics from the Westboro Baptist Church qualify as notable per se? ~~Is Christina Taylor Green notable?~~ Would Christina Taylor Green's death be notable (for the purposes of Wikipedia, I mean, not for those who knew and loved her) if it had not occurred during the attempted assassination of a congresswoman? Are her parents notable because they were invited to attend Barack Obama's State of the Union speech? Is Mark Kelly notable because his wife, Gabby Giffords, was shot? Notability derives from the sum total of a person's life and the way in which the world was impacted by his or her actions, for good or ill.

I can see the way the votes are headed and I fear it is the result of undue sentimentality. I respect the process but I stand by my initial opinion. [email protected] (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my reputation here as being unemotional. I think that some standards for "death of X" articles need to be made, and having a funeral attended by heads of state and of government indicates some evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widespread coverage in RSs reflects the notability here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This had plenty of coverage in the media so it is notable enough, will you realy lose any sleep over this article existing or not? Also, Mickey Harte's article is about himself, this is about a different matter... ie a highly media covered story of a murder.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although this is a tragedy, the victim does not have sufficient notability to warrant an article. Best is to merge the same with her father's article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailashbal (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Nominator (although maintaining article's non-notability) moves herewith to close out this AfD as WP:SNOW. [email protected] (talk) 16:10, 28 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 as G4 recreation, along with two other articles also deleted at AFD last week. I have SALTed all three. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Shot (2010 film)[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Note that the Emilio Rodriguez link points to a completely unrelated bicyclist. Only source is local incidental coverage; no notable people involved. Not sure if this is G4 but if it is, please to be salting — it's been deleted at least twice already. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article now has this source, which I guess is enough to pass G4. But I don't think the source is anywhere near enough to confer notability. It is one local interest story. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A single local interest story is insufficient to establish notability. This is the third AFD for this film. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the previous dicussion, this article was deleted at AfD just one week ago. Looks like a recreation of deleted material and I have placed a speedy tag accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this appears to be only the sceond AFD (but I will not mind being corrected) with the first AFD only some 10 days ago. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first AFD had a different capitalisation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 film). -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one added source did not instill a notability this film lacked 10 days ago... and I just corrected the wikilinks that led to incorrect individuals. But just as I stated at the last AFD, this article is still WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 26 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 List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Elizabeth Dare[edit]

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

Violates WP:N. Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not notable, Sadads (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything is "in universe." Only fictional characters with some unusual "out universe" impact should have articles. Otherwise we are just retelling the story. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with several other independent articles about characters from The Heroes of Olympus. Note that a large number of detailed articles have been created which are based on a handful of primary sources (the books). I would like to have such detailed coverage of novels here, but we should have some additional sources for it. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. Merge/Redirect many of the Camp Half-Blood character articles without third party reliable sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I'm not sure that an AfD is necessary here or for any of the other Percy Jackson character articles. We should just redirect those without references to the proper "List of..." article and be done with it. AniMate 05:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect this article along with all other character articles from Category:Camp Half-Blood characters without real-world info to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series per above at this time. WP:NOT#PLOT violation and no indication of WP:NOTABILITY in these articles at the moment, but Annabeth Chase (Percy Jackson) shows some potential even though it lacks any real "meat" that a character article should have. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mergo to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment double-!vote from nominator--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's more of a withdrawal of the nomination in favour of merging rather than a double-!vote. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then redirect to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Airplaneman ✈ 16:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect per above. Bramble claw x 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to above link. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. No reliable third-party coverage of the character. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 96747 Crespodasilva. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy D’Escoffier Crespo da Silva[edit]

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

I declined this PROD as it seemed not quite cut-and-dried enough. Article about an undergraduate astronomer who took her own life, who did have scholarly work published on asteroid spin determinatins, had an asteroid named after her (an exception to the usual minor planet naming rules), and there is some coverage because of that.

I don't believe the sources I've found establish enough notability under GNG to preserve the article, but I do think that a redirect to 96747 Crespodasilva might be found to be a sensible resolution rather than outright deletion.

I've added one more source to the article (bare URL which doesn't actually show the text, but what's behind the hood is relatively predictable from the source and verifiable by the appropriate Google search's snippet in the search results), and excluded a second I found (the book "Solar System", by various), the latter exclusion because it appears to be a wikimirror. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E. Do we really need to go through an AfD for that? It's not like performing the redirection requires any administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E & WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --Qwfp (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above arguments seems entirely appropriate in this case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Killarney RFC Match Reports 2010-11[edit]

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

This is not encyclopedic, basically per WP:NOTBLOG and/or WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overly detailed reports for sports matches that do not have sourceable importance in themselves (not the playoffs, not international tournaments, and so on) are not encyclopedic and contravene WP:NOTNEWS. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we definitely don't need such detailed analysis for a club playing at what appears to be an extremely minor level of rugby. In fact, I'd suggest the notability of the club itself might be questionable..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 29 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 Electrorheological fluid. —SpacemanSpiff 18:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electrorheology[edit]

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

This page has multiple issues, mainly that a page Electrorheological fluid already exists to explain the effect and applications, that the page Electrorheology reports on just one groups work, and that a citation to this work has already been removed (in Jan 2009) from Electrorheological fluid Aarghdvaark (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - if the disputed content is removed, it would leave only a dictionary definition, and it looks like only one article is needed. Additional context should be provided in the Electrorheological fluid article - this could include a mention of electrorheology. Peter E. James (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Electrorheological fluid. Same proper topic, no content needs be merged. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another chapter from the History of National Museum, New Delhi, India.[edit]

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

Another OR / copyvio article Travelbird (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to National Museum, New Delhi#History. It is useful to have the history of this major institution of India, but not in the form represented by this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional entry that needs a total re-write, speedy delete as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is spam. Rabbabodrool (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources Shii (tock) 02:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinus Show[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct local stage production in Austin, Texas, tagged for notability for two and a half years now without improvement. Related to the self-promotional articles Owen Egerton and How Best to Avoid Dying, which I'm also listing for deletion. Qworty (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. This comedy troupe has not yet “received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” — Satori Son 03:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, does not meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:40, 29 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 deleted by Alison ‎ (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Socialism[edit]

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

Fringe ideology. No refs as of yet. No google hits that use the term as described. Beach drifter (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just fixed the refs someone added (probably a first there...). How good they are I can't say. Peridon (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Perhaps it would be better to merge this article into Creativity (religion). --SCochran4 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually the article is an attempt to hijack a phrase/concept that predates Klassen. I've given a couple of links on the talk page, one from 1903, one from last year. The title may be fine, it's the content that is completely wrong. --Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug is correct, this article could stand on its own, but with completely different content. I feel the content, if any is salvagable, should go to Creativity, this article should become a stub about the actual term, and then I should withdraw the nom. Beach drifter (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#G5 - created by a disruptive repeated sockpuppeteer, now indefblocked - Alison ^❤ 21:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penda Jonas Hashoongo[edit]

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

Not notable and except name and age not verifiable. Played in the Namibian U-20 team and is captain of an non-notable Polytechnic team, consisting not even of semi-professional players. All this is backed up by one listing of a few hundred names, and one non-independent source, again only listing name, age, and position. All other claims are unsourced. But I admit that technically, he might be playing on highest level, because there are only 8 male basketball teams in Khomas Region. Is that sufficient? Pgallert (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to not meet the criteria at the criteria for notability. Random Time 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage on the player, and I question the league's notability in which he plays. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is about an athlete who fails sports guidelines. Xajaso (talk) 22:31, 26 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 userfied to User:Andy5421/Traces of Death III. Traces of Death III now tagged for G6. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traces of Death III[edit]

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

~~Unclear and unsourced. All of the content is simply a plot description, I presume the article is about a movie, which itself may not meet the notability guidelines. Possibly~~ userify for Andy5421 (talk · contribs) so he can work on it outside of the main article space. (Author contested prod.) OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom, endorse userifying for Andy5421. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

userfy it Andy5421 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Ny[edit]

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

Person only mentioned in passing as Swedish prosecutor of Julian Assange legal case. Not notable. aprock (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person is not relevant. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as classic case of WP:BLP1E. Qworty (talk) 05:26, 27 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. Sources are just barely sufficient, but WP:NOTINHERITED puts her under a cloud. For the third time, a consensus does not seem to have emerged, I'm afraid. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Edwards[edit]

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

Not a notable person, although probably a good one. She is known only for her role as the daughter of John and Elizabeth Edwards. The article has been nominated for deletion twice and kept as "no consensus" both times. Looking at the opinions expressed in the discussions it probably should have been deleted. Borock (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have achieved some minimum notability in her own right, with political, business and charitable activities. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she has a nice job, did well in school, and is engaged to her boyfriend. Her parents should be proud of her, but she's done nothing notable in the encyclopedic sense. We need to be extremely careful with articles on kids of politicians and such as they often turn into WP:BLP minefields. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has notable parents, but there's no such thing as notability-by-association. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Perhaps she'll become notable in the future, but has not done so yet. Qworty (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think she's a wonderful person (passion of her mother with the comfort speaking in public of her father), but isn't notable in her own right at this time. You wouldn't create a page for her siblings, but what has she done that is any more notable than Jack (graduating, having a job, and being engaged aren't sufficient). -Jcbarr (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has achieved some notability on her own merits via with political, business and charitable activities.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment BabbaQ, do you have anything to back your assertions up? It's not obvious where you're drawing this from. 18:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete. If she wasn't the daughter of someone well-known she wouldn't be in the slightest notable. Many people are successful in their careers, but it doesn't make them notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Edwards#Family. When we talk about notability not being inherited with regard to relatives of famous people, it should be noted that there are some people who have become the subjects of intense media attention mostly because of their relationship to famous people and not anything they have done themselves (example: David Kennedy). In such cases, the significant media coverage of the relative may be enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. But Cate Edwards has not come under such intense media attention. Instead, she has merely received some incidental media coverage due to her connections to her parents. Therefore, we should redirect this article, leaving the possibility of re-creation open should she achieve sufficient notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per BabbaQ. She's not famous by herself, but I think she barely passes due to the large number of reliable sources cited. This is a marginal case and by no means an easy delete. Alternately, merge all citations into John Edwards#Family. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though agree she isn't especially notable, there's enough coverage out there about her to allow her to scrape by.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Abbott[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. ttonyb (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about being "World Estero Martial Arts Champion," as that doesn't appear to be a notable discipline or organization. Already speedied once; still nothing here meeting WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another mediocre martial arts article with poor notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guidelines and is about a 16-year-old athlete who fails sports guidelines. Xajaso (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about a junior martial artist that fails to show he meets notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 15:05, 28 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trooper Taylor[edit]

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

Non-notable assistant college football coach, fails WP:N and WP:GNG. College football project essay WP:CFBCOACH also concludes that assistant coaches are normally not notable. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep forgive me if I am a little rough at this, this is my first time trying to involve myself in a Wikipedia issue. WP:CFBCOACH concludes that assistant coaches are not normally notable, but may be if "assistant coaches ... were significantly involved in a noteworthy event" Would you remove your call to delete the page if I were to include information on his significant involvment in a national championship team? Would you consider it a significant event if while coaching at Auburn, he filed suit against the Auburn Public Schools? If I edited the article with these, and supported it with sources, would that rise to the level of "significant involvment in a noteworthy event?" Additionally, I would like to argue that assistants should be considered notable because they meet the criterion listed as the reason why head coaches are notable. They have some of the highest salaries on campus, media coverage, the University markets them, they move to new schools, etc. However, the college football notability talk page only discusses the notability of players, games, and seasons. Not coaches. How do I add that discussion to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aub2010bcsnc (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Welcome newbie! Adding a discussion is simple and you are very welcome to do so! Visit whatever page you want to discuss, and click on the "discussion" tab at the top. You can then add and crerate discussions as you would like, just as you did here! Be sure to "sign" your posts as well by adding "--~~~~" at the end.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I dont think that Taylor has done enough in his career to be notable. Being a coach on a good team doesnt make you notable and the suit about his son is even less notable. He may be known very well around Auburn just like Scott Cochran at Alabama but he is not nationally known. Zwilson14 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I certainly do not think assistant coaches are inherently notable, but Taylor is fairly widely known for his association with Auburn and I think he meets notability standards through WP:GNG for extensive media coverage. As for saying he isn't nationally known; anecdotally, I can say that I personally do not follow SEC football particularly close, yet knew who he was. Here is some media coverage focused primarily on Taylor: ESPN: Auburn's towel-waving Taylor keeps things loose (AP story), Trooper Taylor offered chance to coach at alma mater Baylor (AP story); USA Today: Vols assistant Taylor says he didn't expect a shot at being offensive coordinator (AP story); The Times-Picayune (New Orleans): Trooper Taylor reaches mountaintop at Auburn; The Victoria Advocate (Victoria, Tx): Coaching road leads Taylor to Tennessee; Press-Register (Mobile, Al): Auburn's Trooper Taylor gets to know players, Wide receivers coach Trooper Taylor says freshman DeAngelo Benton will rewrite record books, Auburn assistant head coach Trooper Taylor's son suing local school district over coach's hair policy; The Tennessean (Nashville): Taylor counting on Meachem; Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus, Ga): Taylor returns to familiar place; The Birmingham News (Al): Auburn's Trooper Taylor will play freshman wide receivers; The Chattanoogan (Tn): Trooper Taylor Joins Oklahoma State Staff As Co-Offensive Coordinator; Waco Tribune: Ex-BU standout Trooper Taylor to coach at Oklahoma State; Tulsa World (Ok): OSU's Taylor headed to Auburn; Times-Daily (Florence, Al): Taylor hopes all-SEC snub motivates Adams, Taylor had 'vibe' before leaving (AP story); The Anniston Star (Al): Taylor returning to Tenn. roots; WATE (Knoxville, Tn): Trooper Taylor staying in Knoxville?; WHNT (Al): Trooper Taylor is Auburn's towel-waving, chestbumping dynamo (AP story); Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City): OSU's Trooper Taylor joins Curtis Luper at Auburn Strikehold (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage cited above by Strikehold consists of non-trivial coverage on Taylor in multiple mainstream media outlets and establishes his notability. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that most assistant coaches are probably not noteworthy but I disagree with Taylor. He was formerly an Offensive Coordinator and is currently the Assistant Head Coach. I think any major college football coach that is a coordinator or assistant-headcoach or headcoach-in-waiting, etc are all noteworthy as long as the article is well-written. I think the Trooper Taylor and Jay Boulware articles merit that. Also consider that major college football has a similar following (ie importance) to the NFL in many parts of the country and there are multiple assistant coach articles for every NFL team. Even guys who are just QB coaches or line coaches, etc. And I have no problem with that because there is a HEAVY turnover amongst coaches and yesterdays assistant is tomorrows head coach (Hue Jackson and Josh McDaniels are just one of this weeks assistant->headcoach or head->assistant moves). Again, if the article is well-written and sourced, I think the article should stay. The same for former notable high school coaches...the state of Alabama has many like Rush Propst, Joey Jones or Phillip Lolley. Other states have high school coaches as well that somebody deemed encyclopedic enough to write about....I have never heard of the guys but that doesn't mean they aren't notbable enough for inclusion. Again, non of these assistant coaches that have been nominated for deletion merit removal in my opinion! --otduff ^t/_c 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For what it's worth, I'm a casual football fan and I've heard of him. He appears in enough third-party sources to be considered notable. This isn't just your run-of-the-mill assistant coach. HeartSWild (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I count them like associate professors--non-notable unless proved otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree they are not notable unless proven otherwise (which I believe I did), but that is not really a good comparison. Full professors are not considered automatically notable, whereas Division I head coaches are. Strikehold (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enaugh third-party sources. Agathoclea (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the general notability guidelines. Xajaso (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Amazing. Some Wikipedian's think that Wikipeida has become too good to waste its time and space on what reliable sources have clearly spend their time and used their space to cover. It is irrelevant if a Wikipedian thinks that Taylor has not done enough in his career to have been written about in the reliable sources. The reliable sources widely covered and cover this guy's every life move making the topic cearly meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone needs to close this one, it's an obviouis keep (and behind schedule) ... what gives?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 31 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 Powered exoskeleton. After looking over the discussion, it appears the consensus is that the topic does not deserve an independent article, as no one was able to adequetly refute what was best summarized in ScottyWong's post. However, I am not deleting the article, as I believe there may be some material that can be merged back into Powered exoskeleton. NW (Talk) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Powered exoskeletons in fiction[edit]

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

This is a huge list of trivia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the list The top portion is an article, the giant list should be elsewhere. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Delete~~. Without a reliable source to establish notability of the topic, this is original research from primary sources. There's nothing to suggest that any secondary sources have found this topic (as opposed to the individual books, authors, and even characters) notable. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per sources found by Cenarium, below, the information is sourceable, but the list is still trivia. What remains after removing the list should be merged to Powered exoskeleton. There's not enough for a separate article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic, furthermore of established real life significance. It is the subject of a five-page article by Popular Mechanics, a reputed journal that is specialized in tech and science, so it's a source amply reliable for this SF topic, and secondary enough (ie it's not an average gaming or SF site). The notability of this topic is further demonstrated by its palpable influence in the real world, indeed fictional exoskeletons and variants are widely credited for having initiated the development of powered armors, refs: NYT, RIA Novosti, AP. There are enough reliably sourceable material for a standalone article. Trivia can be removed. Cenarium (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are helpful sources. The article consists mostly of trivia, though; the remainder would fit into the relevant section of Powered exoskeleton, surely. If the list stays, clearly this article has to be separated from the parent, but if the list goes, do you see any reason why this couldn't be merged back into the main article? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A merge back is a possibility, although that would be an editorial, talk page, question. Cenarium (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK; though I think a merge vote is a reasonable one here, I agree that a talk page discussion is the best venue. Guidance from this AfD would be helpful, though. I'm changing my !vote to "merge". Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep this needs a significant rewrite, I am going to nominate it for the Article rescue squadron, Sadads (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not "trivia" to list all notable fictional series which have had a powered exoskeleton. Gets coverage as well. Dream Focus 01:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (largely unsourced) unencyclopaedic, largely 'in-universe', 'laundry list' of appearances of powered exoskeletons (and in the case of the 'Skinsuits' section, other suits) in fictional works. No third party content to establish notability or give encyclopaedic discussion of the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confabulate 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete laundry list of trivia. Various bits of info can be sourced, but there's no indication that the notability of the topic itself has been established. Merge any sourced info to Powered exoskeleton before deleting. A redirect doesn't seem necessary in this case. SnottyWong ^confabulate 19:31, 31 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. Discussions for subsequently moving the article can take place on the talk page of the article in question. Currently, keeping... Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Brown (accused murderer)[edit]

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

Page on an accused (not convicted) 13 year old child. Apart from being only known for WP:ONEVENT I feel extremely uncomfortable with having pages on non-convicted minors on here. Travelbird (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Travelbird (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Murders are unfortunately common events, and, despite the age of the suspect and controversy surrounding the trial, there's nothing of particular notability here, however the event itself might deserve mention within another appropriate article regarding the judicial system handling of juvenile crimes. I would think at this stage it is too early to have a separate article per WP:EVENT (particularly WP:EFFECT and WP:N/CA).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person is notable as their case has been mentioned in many newspapers.WP:COMMONSENSE Racklever (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:BLP1E, if there is an article to be kept, it should be about the event, not the person.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - premature, and raises serious BLP issues (both because the crime is only alleged at the moment, and because he is a minor). If he is convicted of murder as an adult, he would probably be notable; apparently in such a circumstance he would be the youngest American to be sentenced to life imprisonment. But that's a long way off (and hypothetical), and at the moment I don't think an article can be justified under WP:BLP. Robofish (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person is notable as their case is very controversial and has recieved worldwide newspaper coverage. WP:COMMONSENSE --Stroller (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Jordan Anthony Brown as a better title for disambiguation purposes. Do NOT rename to Murder of Kenzie Houk as it is the subject and his age that have warranted the coverage... not really the event or the victim. The subject meets WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. Even if acquitted, he has received national and international coverage as "one of the youngest suspects in the country to be charged with homicide". Location (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I agree that is not a reasonable title in case this article is kept, it's not the only other option for a name. It's not the person or the murder that is the main reason for potential notability, but the fact that the accused will possibly face trial as an "adult". Thus, per WP:BIO1E, if kept, it should be named after the event, which is really the court case, rather than the murder or the person accused.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Jordan Anthony Brown? The murder and the court case are separate, but intertwined events that center on one person. Location (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the murder is not notable in itself. And I am not suggesting anything until (or unless) the accused does go to trial as an adult. If the accused ends up in juvenile court, then it will be just a fleeting controversy under WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Being the youngest person in the world to face life without parole is significant, no matter how you look at it. It raises important points about the U.S. prison system in comparative perspective, not to mention ethical issues about such widely recognized ethical dilemmas as life sentences and trying minors as adults. I don't see why this should raise exceptional BLP issues -- the entry is carefully written, and much more could be included that is still very much supportable by accepted evidence. Moreover, it is very, very common to have in Wikipedia (among other reputable sources) discussions of people who come to symbolize issues, rather than just the issues themselves. What about Rodney King's page? What about Charles Manson's? And thousands of other examples... I came to Wikipedia after seeing Jordan Brown's name referenced and wanting to know more about the significance of his case. I would have been very surprised (and concerned about Wikipedians' judgment) to find no entry at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.97.7 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — 71.192.97.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I agree with the unsigned comments above. Totorotroll (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - this case is attracting international attention, and is generating extensive media attention. Also, court decision to refuse juvenile treatment because he refused to show regret - something impossible for innocent people - shows potential to be an important issue in its own right. TeunSpaans (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - simply notable crime/ and offender.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, and potentially move. This is a huge case, and it's been in the news for a while; I think it goes far beyond the not-news criterion. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1) Not a significant crime and the person is not renowned, so discount per WP:PERPETRATOR. 2) The press given to the age of the accused is discounted by our WP:NOTNEWS guidelines. 3) the person in question would be otherwise unknown, and certainly isn't seeking to stay or remain in the spotlight, thus WP:BLP1E. There are many, many reasons to delete this...especially given that it is a a minor accused (not convicted) of a crime...and not a single valid reason to keep. Any call to keep that relies on "but its reliably sourced!" should be discounted, as being sourced is not an answer to why it should be deleted. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robofish and Tarc. I am very uncomfortable with an article about a 13-year old who has not been convicted. If the child is subsequently found guilty, I suggest making portions of his article part of a larger article on the issue of criminal penalties for children -- i.e., the larger phenomenon, not the person or his (alleged) crime. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move and refactor to cover the event per WP:BLP1E. The event is probably notable, but the bio is not proper. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because this article makes people uncomfortable because it is about a minor does not take away from the fact that he is an accused murderer. Wikipedia is supposed to give you factual information, the fact that you are trying to censor this jut because it's about a kid speaks ill of your ability to cope with the goings on in todays society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat6681 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Pat6681 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep --195.84.40.131 (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — 195.84.40.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Rename as Trial of Jordan Anthony Brown since this topic is not a biography but clearly deserves stand alone coverage in Wikipedia. Closer: There is clear consensus for move/renaming, so be please bold and rename Jordan Brown (accused murderer) to something that meets this consensus. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem with such a page is that it is not yet clear whether a notable version of such a trial (i.e. where the person in question is tried as an adult even though the crime was allegedly committed at age 11) will ever take place or whether this goes to juvenile court in which case it isn't notable at all. WP:CRYSTAL Travelbird (talk) 13:28, 28 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville Knights[edit]

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

Minor-league football team playing in the Florida Football Alliance, whose article was recently deleted by PROD. The team do turn up sometimes in local papers, but these are mostly passing mentions, nothing I think qualifies as substantial coverage. In fact, this article specifically identifies them as one of "The top 10 little-known sports franchises in Jacksonville history". Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Saw a couple of mentions on Google News, but the nominator is correct that they appear to be just brief mentions and not anything that would establish notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete try another wiki?? Fails notability, independent non-trivial sources... --Paul McDonald (talk) 01:53, 27 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De facto head of state[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is entirely original research. It has been tagged as being unsourced for over a year. Pete (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Pete (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there's no such position. Either one is 'Head of State' or isn't. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a dumb article, and it doesn't appear from the history that this was ever sourced. Basically, it's the collective personal observations of a series of editors about Governors-General, officeholders who appear on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II in nations like Canada, Australia, etc. OR was piled on top of OR with someone else's observations about the successors of Kim Il-sung. On the other hand, the term is used in books to refer to persons like the Governor-General and even Kim Jong-il, so I can't say that the term is non-notable. Maybe in the hands of someone who doesn't have a "why should I bother with sources" attitude, it could be turned into something viable. Mandsford 17:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a de facto article which covers the same ground. The concept of de facto government is an important one in international law and requires careful explanation. The sense in which it is being used here when referring to Governors-General is unusual and I am not at all sure that it would be generally accepted. Governors-General are constitutional posts and act as agents of the head of state (ie for them and on their behalf); that is very different from the more usual situation where the head of a de facto government (say, the head of a military junta) is acting without the authority of the constitutional and internationally recognised head of state and usually in direct opposition. The article is positively misleading unless it explains all that, and that is best done in the de facto article, which can explain that the term can be used in different senses. AJHingston (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in light of AJH's comment, to de facto, or Delete. As for, 'doesn't exist', there is an example in the news. Gabrielle Giffords' staff is arguably the de facto Arizona Representative. The term is used very widely, widely both in the sense of often (Google Books it), and in the sense of loosely. In an ideal world, it would be redirected to Acting head of state, which is the more popular term. Anarchangel (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by A10. An article actually about Wiredred may be acceptable. lifebaka++ 16:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiredred (Software)[edit]

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

This article is about software which does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. In addition, it is written like an advertisement. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Although WiredRed isn't mentioned in the body of the article, I think this is blatantly trying to promote it. Marasmusine (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence given for WP:Notability, highly promotional tone. Borkificator (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note duplicate at Wiredred - The Video Confarence Software by same editor, tagged for speedy deletion db-a10. Borkificator (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, unreferenced, and per Borkificator Chzz ► 14:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an unhelpful content fork. The content does not match the title, and the current content has nothing profitable to add to the existing article on videoconferencing. So tagging - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 25 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 Omar Khayyám. —SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xayyam[edit]

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

CSD declined (and I don't know why). According to WP:NEOLOGISM "articles on neologism should be deleted" and as I know we don't have a guideline in WP:N for neologism, but as the inventor of the concept is a scholar this concept should pass WP:PROF. Beside this, no third party sources can be found. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Parchizadeh. Farhikht (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply redirect to Omar Khayyám, since someone who comes across the booktitle The Myth of Xayyam might use this as a search term. The fact that Parchizadeh chose to transliterate the voiceless velar fricative with the majuscule of its IPA symbol is not of sufficient interest to mention it in the article. Neither is it necessary to add the term Xayyam to the lead as long as the book is not notable and this spelling remains idiosyncratic, since it will already be obvious to the user why they are redirected there. --Lambiam 13:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Farhikht (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lambiam; their suggestion makes sense to me. Chzz ► 14:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Omar Khayyám. No evidence adduced that the book is notable. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:16, 25 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informativeness paradox[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable (and lacks references). I can find a handful of Google hits, but none that appears to describe what it is - the few I found talk of it in the context of economics, which doesn't appear to be relevant to this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incomprehensible; only a putative example is given, while the paradox it is supposed to exemplify remains undefined. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Lambiam 13:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to paradox wouldn't do any harm (they're cheap); or delete - I don't mind which; it doesn't appear notable, and is just a quote or whatever. Not enough to substantiate an article Chzz ► 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such a redirect would grossly violate the principle of least astonishment for redirect targets; the redirected user would search in vain for informativeness paradox on the target page (and if they are Wikipedia-savvy possibly even search back in older revisions) and end up being more frustrated than in the case of immediate search failure. --Lambiam 09:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article's author has commented on the article Talk page - I've pointed them over here, but the comment is there in case they don't join us. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, WP:MADEUP AndrewWTaylor (talk) 01:16, 27 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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity in art[edit]

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

PRODded as incomprehensible original research, which it currently is. The online sources don't appear to back it up and I suspect they've merely been added because they came from a Google search on art+authenticity. PROD removed by User:Colonel Warden who added a Google books cite which, as usual, is utterly irrelevant to the topic - it is talking about authenticity in terms of genuine or fake art, as opposed to originality of style or use of traditional methods. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does read like an OR-filled essay. I suspect anyone using this title as a search string will most likely looking for a more concrete 'authenticity', or provenance rather than a subjective discussion of aesthetic authenticity, perhaps this should be redirected there. pablo 12:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's at least three ways to tackle this topic and provenance is just one of them. Another is that covered at Authenticity (philosophy) — the sincerity of the artist. That then runs into the issue of faithfulness which arises in performance arts such as music - the extent to which the performer authentically reproduces the artistic intent of the composer. This is therefore a complex topic and so it's not surprising that this early attempt at it should be weak. But the topic, by this title, is quite notable and so our editing policy is to make something of it. See The Oxford handbook of aesthetics for a good treatment which we might use as a model. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That does seem to provide a useful framework. pablo 14:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems relevant to me. Good grief! You have unsourced content by a pseudonym on a WWW site versus a book (Languages of Art by Nelson Goodman) by a credentialled authority, and given that choice you take what the pseudonym writes to be true and outright throw away the authority on the basis that it contradicts the unsourced pseudonymous writing. What on Earth are you all thinking? The authority is what to go with. The sheer perversity of the approach by you, Black Kite, and the sheer thoughtless destructiveness of what Hrafn did in following in your footsteps, is astounding. We're here to build an encyclopaedia based exactly upon what subject experts such as professors write in books, in place of what Wikipedia editors with pseudonyms might write straight off the tops of their heads.
Now get your heads on straight; get a refresher course in basic content policy and the goal of a properly verifiable, expert-source-supported, encyclopaedia that we are aiming for; and take sources such as Dutton 2003 (where a credentialled professor discusses the subject in an university press book), Phillips 1997 (where a university lecturer and museum curator discusses the subject in another university press book), and indeed Goodman1976 that Colonel Warden helpfully found, in hand and mercilessly replace poor unsourced top-of-the-head-written content that doesn't necessarily get the subject exactly right with verifiable content that you can show matches what experts have written about the subject.
You can even link it as a philosophy of art-specific sub-topic of authenticity (philosophy) (which is apparently an umbrella article that deals with more than art), work Spinozzi 2010 into it somewhere, and interwiki link uk:Автентичність (мистецтво), where this article's creator Анна Шабеко (talk · contribs) wrote the original, to it as a hint to Ukrainian Wikipedians as to how to make the uk: article better.
Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dutton, Denis (2003). "Authenticity in Art". In Levinson, Jerrold (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford Handbooks in Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199279456.
- Phillips, David (1997). Exhibiting authenticity. Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719047978.
- Spinozzi, Paola (2010). "The Origin of Art: Towards Humanistic-Scientific Theories and Methodologies". In Spinozzi, Paola; Zironi, Alessandro (eds.). Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities. Interfacing science, literature, and the humanities. Vol. 6. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 9783899717594. (refs added by Uncle G)
  - Surely if the subject is notable it would be far better to delete this and start from scratch, because otherwise you've got the choice of trying to find sources which fit this original research, or doing the right thing and writing an article from scratch from the reliable sources. There's very little if anything here worth keeping, frankly. But I'm having nothing more to do with this now. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of the book CW added is supported by the authoritative Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which gives Nelson Goodman as a key worker in this area of Aesthetics, and his Languages of Art as a key reference [2] . Hrafn makes almost no mistakes in editing, but the removal of this reference was one of them. DGG ( talk ) 14:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with Hrafn's editing, but I'm not impressed with what I've seen so far. The schoolyard level of argument, trying to defend outright blanking of a citation of further reading material instead of just adding == Further reading == above it, is appalling. That's the sort of totally uncollaborative collaboration that Wikipedia can really do without. And it represents a complete lack of imagination in editing. How can it not occur to list further reading as further reading and leave it for other editors to build further upon? And why go to such lengths to keep defending that error, to the extent that one talks of a recognized work on the subject by a credentialled authority in philosophy as "refspam"? That's going to such extremes to defend an outright error that it's almost comical. It's completely backwards when it comes to encyclopaedia writing. Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject matter here seems so elemental to art criticism that it must be covered elsewhere already, even if I don't understand art criticism or how others have structured those articles already. My brief foray led me to the amusing 1920s hoax of Disumbrationism (which was all about "authenticity" and b.s. art critics, in fact) so I'm clearly useless on substance here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the book is irrelevant not because it is unscholarly, but because it deals with 'authenticity in art' in contrast to forgery, not to authenticity in terms of originality/artistic-integrity/or similar, which is the context the article is dealing with it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ....as I said in the nomination. Now if someone wants to convert this article into something about that, then it would be a reasonable cite, but at the moment this is still a piece of unreferenced original research. Let's not have another AfD that descends into an argument about what an article could be, if someone rewrote it. That's not the point, unless someone does actually rewrite it while the AfD is going on. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is the point because it's always the point; in AFD and elsewhere. If one doesn't grasp that then one doesn't approach Wikipedia the right way, that accords with deletion policy. Nine-tenths, at least, of Wikipedia comprises articles that need further work, including outright rewriting in some cases. Articles are not perfect or finished, remember, especially only a mere four days after their inception. That's how our articles, which are works in progress, are written. We write collaboratively, and each do a little bit to push articles towards the goal that they have yet to reach. Go and look at how our banana article developed over nine years. We don't delete articles because they haven't reached the goal yet. We don't delete articles because they've started off sloppily.
    And we certainly don't actively militate, as both you and (even more egregiously) Hrafn have been, against making bad articles better by finding and citing expert sources on a subject so that future editors don't have to do that work, and can in their turn make ugly ducklings into brilliant prose. We don't splutter "But-but-but the unsourced article written off the top of some pseudonymous person's head says otherwise! So we'll reject Nelson Goodman as irrelevant and actively fight against the people who work on improving the article to bring it into line with expertise on the subject.". (Amazingly, Hrafn is still doing this, even now. Go and look at xyr edits to the article and the talk page. One has to ask what on Earth xe thinks xe is doing. The irony of xyr talking about other people lacking clue is almost tangible.) Hfran I don't know about, but you I would have expected to appreciate that most articles start as ugly ducklings, and that indeed they are sometimes started as essentially folkloric and inexpert explanations of a subject that aren't really right. We don't hold to the initial article content as Gospel truth for evermore. I'm sure that you've seen enough, and done enough, rewrites to know that.
    And if you haven't, there are some 3 thousand articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite that you can practice upon. ☺
    Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adding a source that has nothing to do with the article that is supposedly sourced by the statement is a completely improper act, and unworthy of defense. A coincidence of the phrase "authenticity in art" does not make a book a reference. "Actively militating" against an editor that repeatedly does such things is the responsibility of each and every Wikipedia admin. Is it possible to write a good article about "authenticity in art"? Certainly. But the article that CW deprodded was not a foundation for it, and the source he added was wholly irrelevant to the content of the article. Adding such a reference is commiting fraud.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're bending the facts out of shape to try any way possible to make whatever a particular editor did wrong. The facts are that even the original article talked about the sort of stuff that the sources do. It was clearly written by someone for whom English is a second language (even if one weren't aware of the existence of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article from which it was translated), and was equally clearly of-the-top-of-the-head writing. Your idea that introducing Nelson Goodman's Languages of Art into such a situation is "fraud" is laughable, and so obviously counter to what we're supposed to be doing in the cases of making bad articles better that I have to suggest that you take a long hard look at what you're doing. Introducing a subject expert potential source into an article is not "fraud". If you think that it is because of some personal animosity towards someone else, then you really need to get your head screwed on straight. You're putting making Colonel Warden wrong above improving an encyclopaedia article on a philosophy subject. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think my head is correctly oriented. Show me the statement in the article and the statement in the source that correspond, and I will withdraw my argument.—Kww(talk) 11:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The correspondence is detailed on the article's talk page here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I always find it hard to decide whether you seriously believe what you write or not. You seriously believe that providing the chapter of a book as a reference was justified by an ambiguous descriptive statement in the lead? A reference needs to tie a specific assertion in an article to specific support in the referenced material.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I was serious. But no, a reference does not have to be tied to a particular assertion. Please see the relevant guideline which explains, "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They may be found in underdeveloped articles . . ."
        
        The reference I added was a general one, based upon a general understanding of the lead. It was intended to provide a better foundation for this underdeveloped article and so was quite proper. Your suggestion that this general reference was inappropriate is illogical because, like Black Kite, you indicate that you find the lead to be ambiguous and incomprehensible. If you do not understand what the topic is, you cannot say with confidence that this source is irrelevant. So, please now withdraw your accusation of "fraud" which seems unacceptably uncivil. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You still haven't been able to point out content in the article supported by the source. You added the reference not with the intent of supporting the material, but with the intent of confounding a deletion. That's not what citations are for.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I pointed to the lead. The source was intended to support this lead, as understood from its title and the lead itself. Addition of a source was not essential as one may stop a proposed deletion just by removing the template, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.". But a good source was added per WP:REF to demonstrate that the article might be readily improved. I like to leave articles better than I found them, as this is our main duty as editors. This action seemed to work as the editor who placed the prod did not respond adversely, as many do, by immediately starting an AFD. The nominator of this AFD came along later. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. as an obviously notable topic that needs filling out in several directions. Whether it should eventually be divided up into separate articles for the multiple meanings can be judged later. I am amazed that some are still trying to defend what Uncle G has shown to be indefensible destructiveness. I note from the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia that NG's work covers more than just attribution, and indeed aims primarily at the more general question of the intrinsic meaning of artistic value, the most general meaning of "authenticity" Let's not have another AfD where an article being incomplete is used as an reason to delete it. Perhaps this is an occasion for a speedy close as a nomination based on personal antagonism, not a good faith nomination. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Well done DGG, you've succesfully convinced me that there's no point in there being here any longer. Your persistent defence of Warden during the RfC was comical enough, but that comment just takes the biscuit. Please feel free to celebrate with all your friends who are contributing to the demise of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, whilst turning it into a celebration of trivia. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This nomination should never have been about CW, and essentially you invited drama by doing so. The real issue is not whether the subject is notable at all, just whether the article is crap and/or should be redirected elsewhere.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - HM, BK locked his talk page from editing and left this comment: "Seriously, don't bother. "Free encylopedia"? When it suits us. "Encyclopedia"? Collection of trivial shite, more like. Well done WP:ARS, you win." That's unfortunate because BK does good work around here even though I don't always agree with him. Hopefully he'll reconsider.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The philosophy of art is "trivial shite"? I would have thought that subjects such as this, philosophy subjects, are exactly what the anti-trivia brigade would worked hardest in favour of. Working on subjects in philosophy, the sciences, and the like is certainly not what most people would think of as "contributing to the demise of an encyclopaedia", especially as Wikipedia's very first few edits (just recently unearthed by Tim Starling) were aimed at starting on philosophy subjects. Quite the opposite description seems appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or make disam the topic(s) is/are notable, but I see little good coming from the article as it is; it covers several topics, but is not clearly aware of this. We have Authentic performance for music - redirects to Historically informed performance, which seems not to link either way to or from authenticity (philosophy) - & any salvagable content should go to these, mostly the latter I imagine. Or turn into a disam page to those and Provenance and (ahem) Attribution (art) - now that's an article we do need. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This is a fairly large subject that wants a deeper article, and what we have here is a fair start. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Authenticity in art is an important subject area within different fields of art. In the visual arts, authenticity is important with regards to art forgery (an article that this one can complement when completed). In classical music, issues regarding historical authenticity have been discussed widely since the 1970s. In philosophy, artistic authenticity held great sway over the beliefs of Paul Tillich. These examples are coming from one who is decidedly not an expert in any of these fields; I'm there's much more information to flesh out. When completed, this article can be a great overview of these more precise topics. Them From Space 19:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Five minutes in google books yields the following, and there should be much more than this
Meaning and authenticity: further essays on the sociology of art by César Graña

Performance and authenticity in the arts by Salim Kemal

'Art and Authenticity by Jan Lloyd Jones

Also books by/about the philosophers Paul Tillich, Martin Heidegger, Arthur Schopenhauer, etc

Them From Space 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - highly notable topic, and not just forgery. attribution of old paintings is on the news regularly.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Uncle G. Jusdafax 05:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see how this article can consist of anything but opinionated or original research. It's difficult to read and uses nebulous, confusing statements.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you have not read the discussion so far before joining in. Go up to the top of this discussion and read from the start, paying attention to the mentions of credentialled experts in philosophy who have written at length about the subject. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yaksar has it right. It's original research and cannot see a way to write a NPOV article here. AniMate 06:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept is so vague there's little chance this will ever become an encyclopedia article rather than an essay. Part of the definition of what an encyclopedia is is that its articles are structured by well-delineated, well-defined objects, and not vague essay topics like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, the article seems to be all about possible meanings the terms could have, or ways one could describe it. There is no definite or encyclopedic understanding of the term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go tell that to Jerrold Levinson who wrote the "Art, Authenticity in" article in Donald M. Borchert's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and see what response you get. It's sad to see that people with pseudonyms on Wikipedia are demonstrating exactly why Wikipedia is traditionally said to be poor at covering philosophy. ("It couldn't possibly be a subject that scholars have written about." Well it is. "It's not clear and there are multiple understandings of the idea." Well philosophy is sometimes like that. "I don't understand it." Well philosophy is sometimes like that, too; but we don't delete articles because a couple of people with pseudonyms on a WWW site are not Jerrold Levinson.) Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst this subject may merit an encyclopedia article, the article as currently exists is anything but encyclopedic. It's original research. It's also quite unintelligible to the average reader. Get rid of this version and if someone who is knowledgeable on the subject wishes to start anew in accordance with our editing standards then good. Lovetinkle (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While a bit thin at the moment, given the sources provided here, I see no reason to either scrap & start over or to throw it in the junkpile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yaksar and Fut.Perf. [CharlieEchoTango] 07:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow a re-write from scratch without the previous material. A re-write should be based on references found rather than trying to justify the current Original Research based on references found after it was written. I suggest any of those who've written keep here are experienced veteran editors capable of doing that in less time than it would take to argue any further in this discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- You haven't paid attention to the edit history. Several people who have written here have already worked on the article. And we don't delete articles because they once started out with some off-the-top-of-the-head writing from the Write What You Know school of Wikipedia writing (as opposed to the Write on the Basis That You Know Nothing school). Many of our articles did. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't see this as a basis for a proper NPOV article. --Klein zach 07:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: take WP:OR essay on a phrase, add random references for that phrase (which may or may not take the same meaning for the phrase as the original essay) and get incoherent mess. There is most probably a notable topic here somewhere (and quite probably several clearly distinguishable ones), but until the article picks which meaning of "authenticity in art" its on, sticks to it, and sources that meaning, this article will remain fundamentally malformed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the structure the article currently has is not far off the strucure of the piece by Dutton for the Oxford Book of Aesthetics (OUP, 2003) cited above by Col. Warden, setting out "nominal authenticity" (ie. authenticity as distinct from forgery), "historical authenticity" (with particular reference to music, sec 2.5), and then "expressive authenticity" as relevant subdivisions of the over subject. It seems to me that the structure we now have at the article in fact is quite a good framework for going forward. Jheald (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and read through the summaries that appear. [3] "Authenticity in art occurs when artists use the kind of insight that comes from thorough historical awareness and deep personal experience." The New York Times published an article about a book titled "Authenticity in Art: tha Scientific Detection of Forgery" by Dr. Flemings. Two different concepts, both valid for articles of their own perhaps, but then people would just say to merge them together anyway probably. Dream Focus 07:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator of this article contacted various editors about this article after sending it to AFD. First at [4] then at [5] he says "Your favourite editor" and links to it without saying anything more. That one seems like canvassing to me. Telling someone that an editor they argue with constantly has an AFD, and pointing to it, without anything else being said. It is then mentioned at [6] [7]. So four users were contacted. Where was this other conversation had at, and was everyone involved contacted, or just those that might be against a certain editor? The nominator claims to have retired again, but I'm sure he is still around to comment on this. Dream Focus 07:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this edit [8] wiped away some of the discussion here, including one of the keep !votes, i have no idea why.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored it. That is odd. Probably just editing an older version of the AFD? Dream Focus 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec's) Don't be too fast to blame BK, as it looks like it's my fault. It appears I edited an earlier version and accidently wiped out some comments. My extreme apologies. If you have fixed it I am most thankful. Jusdafax 08:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously the article needs huge expansion -- at the moment it does little more than just stake out its scope. But sources clearly are available, and this is an important topic (witness the angst about artists particularly in the music industry "selling out"). The philosophy article is mostly about existentialism, and technical -- it's useful to have a separate article on the general cultural idea of authenticity. As for FPaS saying the topic is "vague", I suspect that could be said about any stub on a theory-orientated notion in the humanities, until the stub is fleshed out and concretely references. These articles on rather general humanities ideas are more difficult than just listing a band's discography or the physical properties of some chemical substance -- for example, I've witnessed the article on sociological marginalization stagger forward over the years, and it could still use a fair deal of help -- but that is absolutely not a reason for us as an encyclopedia not to try to make the attempt, even if to begin with the stub as it starts out is quite crude and limited. Jheald (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's already an article about what selling out means, so info on that can go there. Anything about actual authenticity in the sense of the opposite of forgery should go in the art forgery article. Other than that, this is more of an essay than an encyclopedic article. Just because someone's written on it doesn't mean it's encyclopedic (otherwise this encylcopedia would be full of articles like "The Passion of Dance" or "Finding Beauty in New York." Also, a subject like marginalization, while complicated, has a definite subject and explanation. This article seems to mostly be "some people think it's x, other's think it's y, which is right?"--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Jheald: Why do you think the article in its present condition should be a published page in the encyclopedia? Is it likely to be of value for the reader? If not, then surely it shouldn't be here. --Klein zach 08:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, even in its present state I think it's of some use. It provides a useful dichotomy of different senses of "authenticity", and some references to follow up. That's not a bad start for a stub of this length. But at this stage probably its prime value is in providing a starting framework inviting expansion. Jheald (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD determines if an article's subject is valid for an article. If you don't like the condition its in, that's not a valid reason to delete it. And there is no requirement to prove anything will be of value for the reader. Dream Focus 08:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we determine that it would be better off starting from scratch then deletion is a valid option. A pure re-write is actually disadvantaged by maintaining a history and it is a good idea to shed the GFDL history when we've determined there are issues with the previous text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  - A rewrite would only be necessary if the subject of the article was encyclopedic. While this may make a great topic for an essay, encyclopedic entries need to be based on more concrete subjects, as per my comments above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A rewrite is a bad idea. Its always better to use what's alright there, instead of starting from scratch. Articles are more likely to get done, if there is something already started there to work with. Dream Focus 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dream Focus: "Its always better to use what's alright there". Hmm. Let's temper our judgement with common sense. If we followed that logic there would be little point in having an Afd process. All articles, however bad, would be considered as 'works in progress' meriting publication. --Klein zach 10:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Also see WP:BEFORE. The article's subject is notable, and there are references to prove that. That's all that matters. Dream Focus 10:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NOTCLEANUP says "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." However in this case 'good content' is exactly what is lacking. --Klein zach 11:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article deals with a notable topic, and the different aspects of authenticity in art are worth discussion in one article, even if there are (eventually) separate articles for each aspect. Inversion (music) seems to me to be a useful analogy. The article has some good content and some of this is referenced. I have not found over-riding concerns (e.g. copyright) and such matters have not been raised here. To me there seems to be no policy-based reason for deletion and so the article should be kept. It is, as always, unhelpful that wikipolitics has intruded. Thincat (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above and below, there are already several articles dealing with the various meanings of this title, some of which actually have specific relevant content, instead of vague wafflings. This is not a useful grouping, except for a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Provenance which is the main article for the main topic, and will be what people would be looking for under this title. The more general musings on "authenticity" are certainly important but maybe too vague for an encyclopedia. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, that would not be suitable. Provenance is only one aspect of deciding whether a work of art is genuinely what it is said to be. Art forgery is on the whole more relevant, or authenticity (philosophy). You are right in thinking that this is not a good title for an article on the subject, if only because it is so ambiguous. As I have said above, we do need an article called something like attribution (art). But it should not be under this title. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's just look at the article's intro: "Authenticity in art has a variety of meanings centered around issues involving the credibility of transmission, the authenticity of the sample. The term is also used to refer to the originality of a work and in this sense is opposed to the concept of plagiarism." The second sentence is basically covered by provenance or art forgery. The first basically just says "this term could be a lot of different things depending on how you interpret it." "The credibility of transmission? The authenticity of the sample? There's no clear meaning for this term, just ways it could interpreted it in essays, and it has no real place in an encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G has already cited a entry for this topic in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here's another encyclopedic entry. These entries demonstrate by example that an encyclopedic treatment of the topic is feasible. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but this isn't it. Currently it is twaddle, its not even a stub. It mixes forgery and plagiarism, with authenticity of style, authenticity of process, and some form of waccy baccy hippy 'keep it real man' idealism. Which is it? If the article can figure out what it is about then have it in main space other wise bury it along with the other detritus. John lilburne (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the weak argument of WP:RUBBISH. Our editing policy is that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection is not the issue, no one expects a polished and finished article right from the outset. What the problem with this article is is that it doesn't appear to know where it is going. There are two, possibly three, articles in the current piece. It needs to decide which it is. Move it to user space and work out what its meant to be about rather than leaving it as random jottings in main space. John lilburne (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cite just above deals exclusively with Authenticity in popular music, which indeed would be an article worth having. But why lump it in with visual art issues, and historically authentic classical music performance, which are linked only by the word "authentic"? Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the visual arts there are issues of authenticity, separate from forgery and plagiarism. For example last year the "BBC Wildlife photograph of the year" was revoked because the photograph was of a 'trained' fox. The fashion and cosmetic industry have similar problems regarding the authenticity of photographs of models. At issue with those two examples is whether everything that is claimed or implied in a work is true or not. John lilburne (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And some of those points could be good examples in an article about staged photos, or photo manipulation, of even photo op. It does not help explain this murky article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently the article is muddling multiple concepts, it should be fixed so that its scope is clear. John lilburne (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nothing but badly written original research. SanchiTachi (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. I see the here problems as surmountable. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are indeed some times when the best course for a low quality article is to delete and start over. I've said it here occasionally, and I've told it quite often to people whose articles I have deleted at speedy.This occurs when all the versions are contaminated with copyvio, or the article is too hopelessly promotional to be worth rewriting for the small salvageable material, or in some cases of BLP violation or blatant prejudice--in other words, when the actual material in the edit history is not merely worthless, but harmful. It never is the case with merely bad writing , and certainly not with incomplete writing, or a disagreement about emphasis. All articles grow, and nobody is obliged to cover all aspects at the berginning. There are also times when it is actually necessary to use IAR to justify an AfD to force improvement in an article--it can be the only way of breaking into a walled garden of idiosyncratic or promotional articles, or dealing with a hopeless recalcitrant editor or group of editions. (I've brought a few articles here on that basis, and probably will bring more). What we have here is a case of disagreement about emphasis, and perhaps the misunderstanding of the original author that there was only one use of the term. We deal with both sorts of problems by adding the missing material. In practice attempts to remove such articles here are usually the result of either a subject or personal conflict, or sometimes an fringy view about either the topic, ort about the encyclopedia. Policy is clear: deletion is the last alternative if nothing else will serve.

some of the comments above need particular answers because of the need for clarity about the nature of Wikipedia editing: "There are two, possibly three, articles in the current piece. Move it to user space". We could say that about almost any Wikipedia article on a general topic, but the encyclopedia grows by expanding articles in Wikipedia space , and eventually splitting some of them. That's the whole idea of open editing. But sometimes in general topics with amorphous boundaries it is better not to split but to keep the aspects together in one article, for ease of understanding each of them, and because the inquirer may well themselves be confused, and needs to see them all. It's my guess that this will prove to be one such topic: the meanings of authenticity probably overlap. That's the case for a great many topics in the humanities. I note that the multiple articles on this subject in Encyclopedia of philosophy are deliberate POV splits--their policy is to give the expert editors full opportunity to use their own perspective--and if multiple articles are needed to express all expert views, that's what they have. We, of course, try to avoid that—not being experts, and not here to express our individual perspectives. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First we have Authenticity (A) forgery and plagiarism where a claim is made that X was the product Y; this is either true or false. Then we have Authenticity (B) where a claim is made as to whether a performance of a work of Baroque music sounds as it would have done to a 17th century audience; this does not have a true or false answer it is subjective, a meta discussion, employing different variables. The type of Authenticity(A) is not the same as the type of Authenticity(B) you cannot make any meaningful statement that encompasses both types of Authenticity. What this article seeks to do is the equivalent of trying equate Bear (to carry) with Bear (the animal), and probably Bear (market) too. Good luck on that! John lilburne (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also (C), whether the work expresses the true internal personality of the creator. And that too is subjective, but being subjective does not mean it cannot be discussed, and it's been shown that sources do discuss it. For some things both multi-meaning and very subjective, see the article on Truth, or Justice. (and, btw, the answers to your (A) can be much more than yes or no, & jugements remain in a good part subjective--sometimes on the basis of whether the work meets (C), and for (B), there are both objective and subjective criteria. The three meanings are in fact related.) (&, fwiw, bear market is in fact derived from the animal, while bear a burden is a separate word that in middle and modern english has the same spelling, but different origins.--cf. OED) DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Well I'm glad you've mentioned dictionary definitions because this is what this article is: a list of definitions (WP:DICT) for Authenticity. They don't mix and match in any real sense. You cannot say that a performance of a Bach score, that doesn't use instruments contemporary with the time, is a forgery without sounding foolish. John lilburne (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think any people aren't realizing that just because a famous or renowned person writes on a subject, it does not necessarily make it encyclopedic. Roger Ebert may write a great article about film and preservation and how it has a deep meaning, for example, but that does not mean that an article on "Ephemerality and Film" would be fitting. And any argument about forgery can not at all be used to support this article, as articles on that topic already exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I.)When the person is the author of one of the standard books on the subject, or the author of a major article in a specialized encyclopedia, or someone listed in such sources as being an authority, then it very much shows notability. (II) Even if the person is not, but the material is published in a reliable source known for selectivity and editing, we still have the WP:GNG, which remains the most widely accepted standard of notability here. I think it needs to be used with more care than usually done, but I along with essentially everybody here accept it as the major & indispensable guideline. (III) Basically, your argument above, is "I don't think it's important, regardless of the sources," regardless of the sources is the essence of how not to edit Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Authenticity in Art" is clearly a notable concept(s). Yes, the article needs a good deal of development, and it might easily end up evolving into two or more articles covering different interpretations of the phrase. But we've got indications of notability, we've got a start on some sources which can be used for development, and we've got the beginnings of an article which I think has potential. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have not read the article, and I do not intend to. However, I would like to remind everyone that just because an article on (x) is shit, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on (x). The inverse is true as well: just because (x) is a notable subject, that doesn't mean we need to put up with a shit article about it. DS (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound rude, but if you don't read the article your opinion isn't particularly helpful (but it would be appreciated if you did!) But the problem isn't just that the article is, well, sub-par. It is not about anything in particular, and does not really ever establish a subject.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Uncle G. Well said.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G ("We're here to build an encyclopedia based exactly upon what subject experts such as professors write in books"). Background: I've never liked working on broad scoped topics because they require contributions from editors with extra ordinary editing skills to whittle down voluminous reliable source material into a relatively small articles. When developed only by ordinary capable editors, such articles usually become original research by not properly sampling from all available reliable source material or improperly sampling from non reliable sources (e.g., taking the easy way out and using blogs, etc.). The AfD issues in these cases is whether the article is so far removed from policy (whether it is too deep into original research, etc.), that it is better to reboot and start over. Opinion: This topic is a legit, broad scope topic that could include things like Moral rights (copyright law) and Film colorization controversy. Authenticity in Art was a popular topic from 1972 to 1992.[9] Google books shows plenty of top scholars tackling the topic,[10] with many touching on the issue of physical authenticy/forgery.[11] Even when nominated for AfD six days after its creation,[12] the problems with the article were few and correctable through the ordinary editing process that happens over time. Successful development of broad scoped topics, e.g., Vampire, Polymath, result in Wikipedia's best articles. This AfD is a very heavy handed approach and more respect and time should have been given to the PROD response given that this article was just created on 19 January 2011. A review of WP:DONTBITE is warranted as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between this article and other major articles you mentioned is that the other subjects' articles, while large and probably complicated to write, undoubtably had a place in an encyclopedia. This article basically takes some things that are encyclopedia worthy (and many of which are already covered in other articles or their own articles) and lumps them with vague theories and concepts which are originally research or simply not encyclopedic. And once again, a professor covering a subject does not make something encyclopedic, as per my comments above. --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, why can't we just take out the bits that are not worthy and keep the bits that you agree are worthy? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the bits that are worthy either already have articles or should be covered under a much more fitting title than "Authenticity of Art." The points about authenticity in music, for example, seem to be possibly worth expansion but are not really related to the other parts of this article, and it would be wrong to try to link them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks for explaining. I do think that the more general topic is sufficiently notable to stand alone from the specifics, such as music, but I understand what you're saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that, my friends, is what you call civility. High five!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, yes - we should give lessons :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In between all the mutual civility and admiration, I think you chaps have hit upon something; the meaning of 'art' is crucial here, and many of the essays referenced take it to mean what used to be called the 'fine arts' - including painting, sculpture but also theatre, opera, dancejaysus help me etc. Questions of authenticity vary with the 'art' under discussion. pablo 23:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A bad personal essay masquerading as a Wikipedia article supported by many flawed !keeps. This is the Wikipedia I <3 to H8. Each and every day. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So don't read it Tarc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you.

Facepalm Tarc (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uzma pretty much nailed it above. This is exactly what I expect a stub article on a broad philosophical topic to look like. Let's not tear down those ugly two-by-fours just yet. --Danger (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This Afd is a total waste of time. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There really is no substance in the article of merit at all. After removing everything that already belongs in another article, it really is nothing more than "this could mean things that concern this."--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has an inbalance of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. While there may be merit in the topic, I believe that this present expression is a suitable beginning. References serve more as examples to illustrate the POV being presented than as illustrating the topic. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would just like to note that since this discussion began there has been no real substantial attempts to either clarify what the article means or improve it, both on this page or in the article itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because most don't have a problem with it. Dream Focus 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm, seriously? A lot of the arguments for keeping this article have been that it is weak now but can certainly be clarified in the future, yet I've seen no attempts to do so. Indeed, I'm still having trouble reading it and seeing it as anything more than an outline for an essay, let alone understanding the topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a topic that most of us are capable of diving into. I mean, there are plenty of theoretical physics and pure math articles that aren't more than sketches, but I'm not complaining that you're not writing those. Read the Benjamin article linked (exactly the essay I thought of when I saw this; had a class that spent two weeks on it), then see if you feel like you can add something. I sure as hell don't, but I'm not going to tear down the house before someone with expertise comes along. --Danger (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was perfectly able to understand what the article said, but it gave no clear understanding of the term or its usage. I'm well aware that there are articles where I stand no chance of getting the point, but that is not what I meant in this case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can perfectly understand something which gives no clear understanding? This seems contradictory. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I could talk for hours about, say, deforestation, for example, using only sentences which are clear and understandable, without really helping anyone understand what deforestation is or means.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments here do indeed seem to have this paradoxical character. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, there's no need for that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SAUCE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable as evidenced by the numerous sources which have been cited in this discussion. The article is a new one and it is our editing policy to develop such articles not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Irony: The article has 415 (maybe less than brilliant) words. This (keenly argued) discussion has about 8,500. Indicative of something wrong with Wikipedia? --Klein zach 09:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. One reason that editors like to speak at length in discussions of this sort is that there is little risk of their words being deleted. And they seem free of the usual constraints of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV as they may freely express their personal opinions in a self-indulgent way The discussion thus provides an outlet for creative expression despite our policy that Wikipedia is not a forum. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A rich self-reference here is the question of the true nature of the topic and the extent to which contributions are true to it. My controversial addition of a source has been described as "fraud" much as a modern artist might be described by cynics as a fraud when he exhibits a pile of bricks as an artwork. When we create article about a topic, how do we determine the true nature of the topic, to which we should be authentic? Is a topic a Platonic form of crystalline perfection or is it a pragmatic construct which may be somewhat amorphous and plastic? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating questions! However in this case it is just a pile of half-translated, quarter-understood crap that nobody will ever bother to turn into an adequate article and will be quickly and quietly redirected somewhere after another AFD in two or more years time. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however the 'Keep' editors do have an opportunity to prove you (and the rest of the 'Delete' party) wrong. Will they take that opportunity? --Klein zach 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to have done so, so far.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have improved the article in various small ways. More substantial work must wait upon completion of the AFD as it is not much fun performing in front of hecklers. See WP:INSPECTOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait. "More substantial work must wait upon completion of the AFD"? Isn't one of the points of an AfD to give editors time to improve and save an article? And while I do understand your point about hecklers, the house metaphor is a bit off in this case. It's more like someone started building a house, and then after building half of the walls promised they'd eventually continue.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I removed the information that pertained to plagiarism or historically informed performances and linked to them in a hatnote. I believe more can probably removed and instead directed to provenance or authenticity in philosophy, but I don't feel comfortable making that edit myself. What's left seems to be largely more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. I've noticed that no other editor has followed through on efforts to substantially improve the article, simply trying to defend that "someone" will eventually fix it up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goinedit[edit]

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

Contested prod. Utterly non-notable software product with zero relevant hits on Google. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM}} andy (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that if fails to meet basic notability (as far as I can see) Chzz ► 14:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence or documentation of its notability. -HeartSWild (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert with no attempt to establish notability TEDickey (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve this article is not written like an advertisement yet, found some secondary-sources in python.org and texteditors.org 17:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.8.43 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Hamlin[edit]

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

She is a technical illustrator who got a complain because she drew someones nose too big. Does this grant her notability? IQinn (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E, person 'notable' only for one event; no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Zero notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Robofish.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E per Robofish. Likewise the subject also lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails the general notability guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This individual lacks any notability whatsoever.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:41, 28 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 List of Ergo Proxy episodes. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Proxy media and materials[edit]

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

Listcruft, or the potential for it. Should be merged with its parent article Ergo Proxy or deleted. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~the music info into List of Ergo Proxy Soundtracks or on the main page under soundtracks, and~~ Ergo Proxy Region 1 DVD Releases into List of Ergo Proxy episodes the rest just looks like character info that is already covered by List of Ergo Proxy characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge piecewise as proposed by Knowledgekid87 (I suggest the music go to the main page for a start). —Quasirandom (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went WP:BOLD and I have done that merge, content can always be deleted or discussed on the main article's talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It didn't look to me like there was anything that wasn't better located somewhere else, and I agreed with the above. --Gwern (contribs) 19:09 26 January 2011 (GMT)

Merging the DVD info should be no problem as well if that is what people want, if that is done I will just change my opinion to delete here as I think the character info is already covered elsewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all the content from this article is merged to other articles, shouldn't the article be kept as a redirect to one of those articles in order to preserve the page history? Calathan (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think all the content should be merged though but would support a redirect to the character page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 26 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) 10:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (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)

Delete - (nominator) A minor figure in a small religion. Most of the information on the website is from primary sources or unsourced. If this figure were determined to have been noteworthy, then this article requires a fundamental rewrite which imo would be better accomplished by writing it from scratch than editing this current version that runs afoul of multiple policies like WP:NPV, WP:WEASEL. Clearly, this person fails notability for individuals._WikiMan^One 06:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A small religion? Salegi, the Seventh Day Adventists have roughly 66,000 churches. If that's a small religion, then I would like to know what's a medium sized religion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article stretches to establish the appearance of legitimate sources (there are 32 references), but when you check them, they're all either dead links, testimony, WP:OR, material from pamphlets, brochures and other ephemera, or hits to the subject's own website. In short, there's not a single WP:RS that demonstrates notability. Much of the article itself seems to be WP:OR, suggesting this may be nothing more than a vanity or fan page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Much published, cites few. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: when deleting, Koranteng-Pipim and Samuel Pipim should probably be deleted too as they redirect to the article which appears likely to be deleted. _{nonsense!this}_WikiMan^One 22:59, 29 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. It has been recommended that this article be moved to List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup schedule[edit]

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

It is a total content fork to 2010 FIFA World Cup. Every date information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a separate article for schedule. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Delete the content from 2010 FIFA World Cup as it causes bloat in that article. That's what was argued when the content was duplicated to 2010 FIFA World Cup from 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Now the tournament is over, this article is effectively a List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches, and I cannot see how anyone would object to that as a proposed Wikipedia list article. As we do not generally consider lists as invalid/redundant content forks simply because their contents can be divined from careful reading of other articles (which in this specific example, would take hours), I see no valid reason for deletion here, just a need for clarification of the nature of the fork, by renaming it. There might have been a case if information like dates/kick off times/venues wasn't considered worthy of recording for posterity in the main article, but it clearly is. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above as being documentation of a noteworthy event. Another option could be turning this into a collapsible template, and including that into the main, but to link to this from the main article would better serve the purpose of giving the info.--AerobicFox (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a content fork. There is no information on this page that isn't adequately covered in 2010 FIFA World Cup. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless content fork. Article carries little substantial information. --Jimbo^[online] 11:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic list, like millions of others on Wikipedia. What substantial information are you expecting it to include exactly? And how would that make it less of a 'pointless' fork? MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's limited in it's information in what it can contain. There's no need for a seperate article just for the schedule. --Jimbo^[online] 19:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's as lmited as most ordinary lists on Wikipedia, and such lists don't tend to be of any use if they are crammed with terrabytes of data. This simply isn't a valid argument for deletion to me. And it's not a schedule any more - it's a list of results. If that's what is not needed on Wikipedia, I would have thought the argument would be NOT#STATS, not 'this can be found in another article' (although not as quickly). MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a content fork. Removing the information from the parent article as Walter Görlitz in order to keep this fork isn't a sensible suggestion. much better to keep it all in one place. Giant Snowman 14:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete "as a content fork"? Where does that come from? Content forks are generally good things as they enable us to keep excessive detail out of head articles. That's the case here. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All details exist on the main article as well. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a content fork will enable us to remove that excessive detail from a 110kb article that shouldn't have such excessive detail and should have much more information about other matters. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're talking about removing essential information, the outcome of the matches, from the main article. While content forks in general do have a purpose, this one does not. Generally, a content fork is useful so that a portion of the subject of an article can be treated in more detail without bloating the main article. This article, however, does not provide any detail not already in the main article, and removing any of this articles content from the main article would undermine it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is it essential to list the results of all 64 matches in the main article for the tournament? I'll put it this way: if the fork was to be used properly, two really good things would happen. First, the size of the head article would be cut down, making it easier for editors, particularly those with slow connections, to access. Secondly, the article could become a proper article, with much more prose and significantly less statistics. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 24 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point. However, each of the groups, the knockout stage, and the final already have articles of their own which adequately cover these matches. On the other hand, the articles on every major football event list the results of every game in the tournament in question. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but to me this is very indicative of a consensus that the results of every game should be included. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per those above. The main article is too long as it is, and splitting out easy-to-source and discriminate content looks like the best way to solve the problem. I honestly can't see why every result needs to be detailed in the main article - while results are clearly important to the competition, listing them all seems like overkill. What we should consider is doing the same for other overly long tournament articles like the 2006 one. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sections which contain the schedule were already split from the article in 9 different articles (1-1 for every group and 1 for the knockout stage). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which shows that having the same information in more than one place is not a reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The schedule of that event seems notable - it has been covered in reliable sources. We're not short on disk space. Of course, it could be improved - or indeed done in other ways (template, whatever) - but I simply see no harm in referenced notable info on the project. I don't think the topic fails WP:NOTDIR, because of the coverage elsewhere. I agree forks can be a bad thing, but in this specific inst. I could see it potentially becoming a decent article in itself. Chzz ► 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm surprised that no one, myself included, has thought to look at the actual guideline concerning forking. It states: Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. As an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. The way I interpret this is having spin-off articles on the matches is okay, but having more than one spin-off article on any given match is not, the final being obvious exception since there is much more coverage on that match than any of the others. So I would suggest is we either merge the group and knockout round articles into this one, which would make this article very bloated as well, or we simply get rid of this one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it before, and it's not particularly relevant here. This is a stand-alone list article. It's not a summary style spinout of anything, and it's not an unintentionally created example of duplication. The purpose of the article was, and still is, to intentionally present the basic match data of the whole tournament, as a list, with the full knowledge that it was also present in all the other articles highlighted already (that's why the results have always linked to the relevant sections in those articles). Infact, if anything, the purpose of this article is to present that information in a clearer and easier to manage format than in the places it already exists, which the guideline encourages. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main article might need pruning. Agathoclea (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2010 FIFA World Cup, I don't really see why this needs a separate page. BUC (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a useful easy to read summary of the matches in chronological order, which would not be so easy to extract quickly from the main article. Eldumpo (talk) 11:37, 30 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 WP:SNOW redirect of non-notable subject article which is an attack magnet. Dreadstar ☥ 19:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. Scott Connelly[edit]

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

A. Scott Connelly seems to be creator/founder of MET-Rx. The issue is here seems to be not independently notable from his product. Article seems to be a vandal target. Seems to Fail WP:NOTE as it is no inherited. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum, he gets some coverage for not very flattering reasons (may not be WP:RS though), besides some quotes on andro and what not in the mainstream press— click the news link in your nom. There are also some interviews with him on the bodybuilding sites, e.g. [13]; no idea how notable that site is or even if it's unrelated to him. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to MET-Rx. Not notable except for the company. I found literally nothing by him at Google Scholar, which surprised me. I noted that the UCLA Nutritional Sciences Laboratory is "named for him", which could indicate notability - but I suspect it was actually named for a large donation made by him (in effect he purchased the naming rights - which is becoming more and more common at medical schools), rather than named by UCLA in recognition of his achievements. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the naming wasn't to honor him a research scientist. (I can even tell you how much it would cost you have your name on the door of a lab at the last US academic institution I worked for—6 figures). Connelly was trained as an anesthesiologist, and published a single paper [14] in academic journals as far as I can tell, although some academic studies on Met-Rx were published by others [15]. He's got a bit of personalized coverage in Sports Illustrated [16], the SF Examiner [17], and a local business magazine [18], but it's all in relation to Met-Rx. There's some coverage of him promoting androstenedione in the press [19] and in books chronicling that stuff [20] [21], but that's also in relation to his position at Met-Rx. His other endeavors did not seem to have generated mainstream coverage, discounting paid-for radio shows: [22] [23] Conclusion: marginally notable biography subject to WP:COATRACK attacks (see WP:AN), not worth the hassle of having around. A redirect to Met-Rx seems the best option for now. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MET-Rx. If the guy becomes independently notable, then we can always split off an article about him again. Currently, nothing warrants doing so. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SF Eaxminer [24] referenced earlier actually claims according to their investigative report "In interviews and promotional materials, Connelly claims he graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1973 and was on the faculty of Stanford Medical School between 1979 and 1986. Harvard says he was there only as a post-grad "special student" in the 1973-74 academic year. He got his Doctor of Medicine in anesthesia from Boston University School of Medicine in 1978, did a one-year Stanford fellowship in 1981 and was in private practice in anesthesiology in the Palo Alto area in the 1980s. Stanford says he was an unpaid "clinical instructor," meaning that he taught once a month in exchange for treating patients there. But the university said he was never part of the full-time faculty."
Relevance: The current Wikpedia page is propogating the continual false claims that Connelly graduated from Harvard, that is false. Connelly claims he was on the faculty of Stanford between 1979-1986, that is also false according to Lisa M. Krieger, San Francisco EXAMINER MEDICAL WRITER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFBBLOVER (talk • contribs) 10:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make him notable. Yworo (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Met-Rx per Tijfo098 and Amatulić. Yworo (talk) 19:00, 29 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. Definitely no consensus to delete, but whether it should be merged / where to merge it is unclear from this discussion. As it is an editorial decision, it can be decided later on. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Child Born To Die[edit]

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

Delete. Part of a publicity blitz initiated on 24 January 2011 on behalf of a new organization. Deleted prior as G11 CSD and re-created. When G11 was reinstated a second time, it was subsequently removed. Respectfully, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Cind.amuse 03:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this page was created in order to share knowledge and awareness of the issues around child survival and the MDGs - i have used the same approach as for the Stop Violence Against Women page, which seems to be deemed appropriate content by the editors, so not sure why this one should be treated differently. The phrase "no child born to die" is one which is becoming very well known in the public sphere and, as such, i feel it merits a page on wikipedia. This is not purely about promoting a campaign or a cause, but highlighting key issues of humanity on a global level. Please do not delete this.

To note your own guidelines around non-profits at Wikipedia:ORG, "a company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" - and "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability". There is much coverage of No Child Born to Die in many such sources, and this will continue over the coming months and years

In short, the aim is NOT to advertise or promote which i understand why wikipedia must be careful about. If you have suggestions about how the entry can be further edited or amended to satisfy your requirements on such issues, I would be happy to incorporate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcapeling (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Save the Children. Not nearly enough depth of coverage to justify its own article at the moment. If that changes, it can be split out again.--Korruski^Talk 11:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a Save the Children UK initiative, not a Save the Children initiative, so it wouldn't be appropriate on that page. No Child Born to Die is a new project, but this page will grow as it evolves. I'm assuming that creating a Save the Children UK page would not be appropriate, especially as there are 28 other Save the Children organisations.Evelyn727 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the distinction. The current Save the Children article appears to cover the entire international organisation, including the UK. Why not include it here?--Korruski^Talk 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Save the Children is not one international organisation, it is 29 different organisations which loosely bind together under one "alliance" - therefore the options on Wikipedia are either to have one page for this loose "alliance" or to have 29 seperate Save the Children entries. As it is currently the former, it would not be appropriate to use that page for information about a campaign which is only by Save the Children in the UK. Setting up a seperate article for Save the Children UK would enable the merge suggestion to be possible, but as this new article would only duplicate much of the content already in existence on the current Save the Children page, wouldn't this be more inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcapeling (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, you cannot !vote twice. I would suggest that you merge this content into the article about the 'loose alliance' under a new section headed something like 'Save the Children UK'. This seems like the best option.--Korruski^Talk 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - It is notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely asserting notability without reference to policy or to the article is not a useful argument. See WP:JNN--Korruski^Talk 12:31, 31 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) Dusti^*poke* 07:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maori Composers[edit]

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

Not notable, unreferenced, unclear. Contested PROD. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to keep/withdraw this nom now, as I see it has been fixed up quite a bit and actually makes sense. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the nom didn't understand what this was attempting, because outright deletion is completely uncalled for; it's just a sublist of Māori people by occupation. It just doesn't seem needed as a separate list, however, so prune the redlink names (if appropriate; maybe they all merit articles?) and merge to List of Māori people, probably under the "musicians" header (change that to "musicians and music composers" if wanted). postdlf (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article was not tagged until now. postdlf (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate the nominator's concerns about this page, in its current form. But I note that at least a few of the listed names do, in fact, have sourced biographies here, and I think that this page could serve a valid function as a list relevant to a topic (Category:Māori music) that currently seems to be underdeveloped on Wikipedia. So I lean (weakly) toward keeping this article, but renaming it to List of Māori composers (or alternatively adding the content to List of Māori people as postdlf suggests) and cleaning it up. I agree that the latter parts of the article, referring to unspecified awards, are hard to understand and may need to be deleted if clearer context is not provided.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. postdlf (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep per Arxiloxos's suggestion. Grutness...wha? 04:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep there are a significant number of notable Māori composers and musicians; certainly enough for a list. I'm thinking that List of Māori musicians may be better than List of Māori composers, unless there are a non-trivial number of composers who aren't also musicians. I'm prepared to do some work I this article and I suspect that other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Māori task force will be too. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have removed the redlink entries in the article and have moved it to List of Māori composers. Although, a better title might be List of Māori musicians since it's unclear if some of the people on the list are even composers. (Just from their articles). OSborn^arf_contribs. 06:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (as already done) and keep. It is much easier to verify and establish notability for a composer than a musician, so current title is best. dramatic (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 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) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missoula Phoenix[edit]

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

Semi-professionall football team of questionable notability. Fails WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 18 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) 03:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no non-trivial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:08, 25 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

En Derin[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician (fails WP:GNG). Lacks any reliable sourcing. Sources used are almost all self-sources (I removed reverbnation.com ones). Claims to fame appear to include participating in a radio call-in show with a psychic... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few claims that were removed[25] from the article:

ReverbNation.com chart listing. (Issue: if these charts are useable for wikipedia, or not)
Cyprus TV and Radio appearances (Issue: only primary sourced[26]. Still looking for independent sourcing...)

Same issue with airplay received in USA, UK, and other countries - only found primary sources[27] so far... Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reverbnation.com is a promotional website for musicians and is clearly not appropriate as a source. "Chart listings" in this case does not reflect any real-world interest or sales, but it is a moot point since there is not even a way to confirm Derin's placement. Cut and paste snippets of press quotes on a promotional website are not primary sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 18 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) 03:30, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pogo (electronic musician)[edit]

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

The artist does not meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia, and the majority of the sources used are not authoritative sources. Crashmart (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)— Crashmart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 18 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) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, sources are interviews and the like. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is out there if it's searched for: Washington Times, adlatina.com, The Atlantic, Punto Informatico. Passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:N ^walk victor falk^talk 21:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. The sources listed on the article and on this deletion page together do not comprise "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG, and some are questionable in reliability as per WP:GNG. In many cases the artist was only mentioned as part of "trivial coverage" as per WP:MUSIC. --Karkk (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)— Karkk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Washington Times and The Atlantic are certainly reliable sources and those two articles are certainly significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid two sources with minimal coverage of the artist are not enough to constitute significant coverage. As much as I believe that every artist should have their chance on Wikipedia, blatant advertising of artists that lack the required notability is not allowed on Wikipedia unfortunately. --Karkk (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The only contributions made to Wikipedia by both the nominator and User:Karkk are attempts to remove this article.--Michig (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange but not really relevant. I have made many edits without an account but decided to get an account recently, and coincidentally noticed this deletion nomination page for an article that lacks the necessary notability for Wikipedia.

Weak keep. I know the refs are light, but I'm failiar with his work through Showtime's Dexter, when Showtime featured his work on their website. When you google "pogo faggotron -wikipedia" (faggotron being another alias of his) you get 1660 hits (not that many, granted, but nothing to sneeze at). I would err on the side of keeping.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep neds cites integrated but it is notableThisbites (talk) 19:21, 28 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.

Could the deletion notice be removed now please since it was decided to keep. -- RND T C 21:51, 22 August 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 keep. Although he is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, he does pass WP:GNG, which is enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Bengur[edit]

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

The article asserts no notability outside of the fact that he has unsuccessfully run for office, therefore he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Note also that this BLP is sourced only to the candidate's website and a business listing. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was at one point treasurer of the MD Dems but all his races were losing; I couldn't even find evidence that he had run for delegate in the most recent race. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE points 9 and 10. I have added easily found sources to the article dating back as far as his service as an aide to the Governor of Maine in 1979. The subject has had political and business coverage outside of his recent campaigns, and passes the GNG. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 18 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) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every single person in my class at High School is more notable than this individual and yet not one of them is listed on Wikipedia (nor care to be). My apologies if that sounds harsh. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Only one source indepent of subject that is really about the subject of the article (and it's a VERY local source). Interviewing him about someone else does not establish notability. Lack of actual public office preclude passing WP:POLITICIAN. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- keep The updates to the article are enough to persuade me to change my vote to a keep. I would like to comment also that tagging an article for rescue during an AfD is not a bad thing. I've seen several AfD's result in a vastly improved article that can then be kept. Kudos to JimMillerJr for the substantial improvement over the past day. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that after two additional delete arguments have been made since being relisted, User:JimMillerJr has now tagged the article for rescue. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above is an improper point as we are supposed to discuss edits, not editors. Also, adding a rescue tag is a perfectly legitimate maintenance edit for any article being discussed for deletion, and it's addition to the article has no bearing on this discussion, the comments that may follow, or the value of any other contributions made to either the article or the AfD. A standard delsort statement would have sufficed. This comment demonstrates bad faith. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 01:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am discussing your edit (specifically your tagging the article for rescue only after additional delete arguments were made); I did not make any personal remarks about you as a person. I never said the tagging was improper - only that it was worth noting. Regardless of how the AfD closes the article was tagged for rescue by the only person who argued for keep once two additional delete arguments were made. I would also have made a similar comment if an editor had marked it for speedy deletion in the middle of a discussion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 02:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN, and the coverage appears to be either very local or very tangential. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. SnottyWong ^chatter 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes the general notability guidelines, and that's all that matters. The news media certain mentions him and quotes him enough to be considered notable. Click the Google news archive search at the top of this AFD, and glance through the results. Dream Focus 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets our notability requirements. There are a range of reliable sources and some significant claims to notability - the first candidate of Turkish origin to run for Congress in US history. I haven't looked closely at the history, though I note the article has improved since being nominated, and it may be worth those who !voted to delete early on to revisit the article, and to check out the sources in the links at the top of this AfD. SilkTork *^YES! 22:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New material and new citations make this a Keep. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:28, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dawn Gaming[edit]

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

It's an online gaming organization. Article details history and rivalries with other groups that would only be of interest to hard-core clan members. All this information is unsourced as well. Only assertion of notability is that the organization was featured in a CNN International mini-documentary on the gaming community. While that's cool and all, I don't believe that this confers notability in and of itself, especially without any additional third-party sources. Zachlipton (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can trim the history down to key points and get some more references. I only moved it off my page so that it could be developed more by others and not just myself. The main claim to notability is the cnn documentary which the clan was a part of in addition to work with AQA who is well known regionally in Oregon (I'm not sure what the scope of notability must be for Wikipedia). I am new to creating my own article (I have edited numerous times before) so I would appreciate any advice on cleaning up this article. Achilles2144 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious. Bad referencing, not notible. Skullbird11 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In response to above, what must be improved in terms of referencing? Can you clarify? "not notible"; Fulfills Wikipedia's notability guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability), only dubious criterion would be "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.", but they are a major part of the CNN mini-documentary. In addition this was shown internationally in April of 2010. Achilles2144 (talk) 4:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Achilles2144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, "notable" refers to the policies at WP:N. That policy requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to receive a presumption of notability. The CNN story is great, but it's one mention, as opposed to the multiple sources required by the guideline. Furthermore, Blue Dawn Gaming does certainly play a role in the story, but it's not the primary subject. That's fine too, but it provides another indication that additional sources are needed to confer notability. As the policy states: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Basically, to get their own Wikipedia article, websites and web content should have had enough of a meaningful impact that multiple independent people have commented upon them in reliable sources. I don't see substantial evidence that this is the case here. It's nothing personal, and if you can supply additional references, I'd be happy to reconsider. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As stated above, the documentary cannot verify this clan's notibility per WP:N. I should have explained this in my first comment. I have been a part of the gaming and eSport community for some time now and I have never heard of this clan. In terms of referencing, I only see 2 sources at the bottom of the page, the clan's website and this documentary. I feel that more is needed. Do they or have they taken part in a major MLG league? I guess that could pass WP:N if the sources are there. Skullbird11 (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak keep - The CNN.com video, while typically a reliable source, could also viewed as a self-published source since Ramirez (the author of the video) belongs to the associated clan. --Teancum (talk) 16:58, 19 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) 03:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing mention on CNN is not what notability is supposed to be all about. Qworty (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:GNG. gnews shows nothing [28]. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It is a major part of the documentary and not simply a passing mention. Additional sources have been added on the page as well. Perhaps the history should be summarized better. Achilles2144 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, new to this, assumed that one could after relist. Achilles2144 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.151.5 (talk) [reply]

Delete. Simply not notable. I sense some WP:COI going on as well.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep needs work but notableThisbites (talk) 19:20, 28 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) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Chef[edit]

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

Only 'references' in the article are primary sources, if Appshopper pages can even be deemed that; the external links add nothing else, and should all be removed per WP:EL anyway. This is not a notable application. Editor does seem to have a preference for Appshopper; see Montessori on the iPad. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 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) 03:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements - can't find refs. WP:GNG, WP:V Chzz ► 15:04, 25 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) 00:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GSLPA[edit]

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

I doubt that an exam that is only administered by one school is notable enough for inclusion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 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) 03:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs, can't find any, and a merge seems pointless for unreferenced material. WP:GNG Chzz ► 15:06, 25 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki Berenguer[edit]

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

On the face of it this looks like a reasonable referenced article, but looking deeper there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the sources are not independent, and those that are, aren't about him, but his company. And sorry if this might sound like bad faith, but I find it rather surprising that the user who started this article managed to do so with their very first edit, and with perfectly formatted references. Quantpole (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking beyond present sources, a superficial search locates mention in Wall Street Journal [29], in El País. The extent to which is it about him or his company involves subjective judgement, and certainly more searching. Should it be a serious problem a merge might be relevant, to the company - which also is loose-hand carpet-bombed tagged for Notability despite multiple sources. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:06, 19 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) 03:26, 25 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) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyssero[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This came up as csd candidate and grounds the article was previously deleted, however a look at the logs suggested the page deleted then and the page as it is now are different enough that a second afd would be better suited for the page. At present the article is short, cites information to what appear to be non-english sites, and based on past instances of deletion may include self published references from the rapper in the article. I have no opinion on the article's deletion, I list it here only because the csd category is backlogged and this seemed an iffy csd claim to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 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) 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable--this is all there is. Those German links, I have little faith in those articles--there is no author, it hasn't been updated since 2008, and while laut.de claims to have editorial oversight I'll see it before I believe. Either way, there isn't enough coverage to make this guy pass GNG, and no record deal to make him pass MUSICBIO--I don't believe for a minute that he's under contract with Imperial Records, who don't even list him as one of their artists on their website (see "Artists"). I've also listed his third album on these pages; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destined for Greatness. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding his other two albums for deletion: Philly's Bad Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Certified EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drmies (talk) 03:46, 25 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) 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Dowse[edit]

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

as per WP:BLP1E. gnews reveals a spike of coverage in Ireland and not really a longstanding incident. [30]. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very widespread coverage in both TV and newspapers in Ireland, including a TV documentary. Case helped form public opinion here. Certainly not a BLP violation. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:00, 21 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) 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Qworty (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Maria[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD, article about a footballer from Curacao who has never appeared to a fully professional league, and not even to a senior international football team as well; he fails WP:NSPORT, and most importantly WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has earned full international caps, as per this site. Giant Snowman 16:43, 22 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) 03:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per GiantSnowman's rationale. Passes WP:NFOOTY. --Jimbo^[online] 01:16, 26 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) 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olavo de Carvalho[edit]

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

The subject seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. The entire article, with all its claims and footnotes, seems to offer but a single WP:RS, namely the interview [31]. An article based on this source would not be viable; an article based on the other sources is not properly sourced. Wareh (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: With regard to the notability criterion, it is a known fact that de Carvalho is not and has never been a College Professor. He didn't even finish College, because his mentor, a priest, died before that. But he is a journalist and has written books, and is nothing more than an outspoken conservative journalist and writer. The problem is that he claims to be a Philosopher and attaches great importance to himself. So the point is: as an article about a journalist, this is ok, but not as an article on a scholar or academic, for he is not.
The other point is that he is only known in Brazil for writing articles in newspapers, magazines and internet, which are considered polemic, funny and bizarre, to say the least. An encyclopaedic article on de Carvalho has to provide this information to the public and not to omit it, or else it would be completely dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.106.201 (talk • contribs) 18 January 2011
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the material in the long sourced article in the Portuguese WP. Very clearly a major political writer (gthere's also a page on him in the German and French WPs. I will normally defer to the judgment of the Portuguese WP editors in material on notable figures from their own language area, which they can judge better than we. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a major political writer. Just a funny guy, at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.110.100 (talk • contribs)

Are you sure you consider pt:Olavo de Carvalho to be "sourced"? It seems to me that the English article has one secondary source (an interview), but that the Portuguese article has zero secondary sources, basically only links to the subject's online postings. Wareh (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, by the way, to note the changes in focus between the various wikis bios of him: in the Portuguese WP, he is presented as a regular, scholarly intellectual, by way of abundant quotes from his allegedly philosophical works; in the German WP, he is presented as a kind of saintly figure, who spent his childhood sick in bed, where he began his self-enlightnment. Alas, as seem on the German Discussion page, it was noticed that he is credited with speaking Classical Greek fluentlyCerme (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability requirements. While he might be known in particular niches, he is not well-known or possess any general notability in Brazil. Current RS do not adequately establish that, in my view.--Dali-Llama (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The point is that de Carvalho is neither notable nor remarkable. He is just a journalist and not a very good one. He is known by some in Brazil because of the heated polemics he creates, as well as his articles in newspapers, which oftentimes cause people to laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric Sands (talk • contribs)

Notability is not a matter of whether the subject is good at his job, or about whether he is ridiculed. A Wikipedia article about a subject is not an endorsement of that subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is an attempt of self-praising, yeas, it is an endorsement. If you, on the other hand, allow the public to know he is ridiculed in the circles he is known, then it is balanced. Cedric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.109.56 (talk • contribs)

My point is that the existence of an article is not an endorsement of the subject's views. If there are reliable sources saying that he is not a good journalist or that he is ridiculed then such content can be added to the article by the normal editing process. They are not in themselves reasons for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy operates in the outer periphery of Extreme Right politics in Brazil, and as such has gained some visibility. However, until someone gathers enough secondary (i.e. third-part) RS information about him, what we have here is mostly a piece of propaganda, probably coming from his admirers (which is IMHO clearly the case in the pt Wiki, as can be seem on its discussion page)Cerme (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Wareh (talk) 18:36, 28 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. -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Me Jesus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS - no sources, no establisment of notability, demos generally fail notability MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firslty, the band is notable. Secondly, although this was originally released as a demo, it was later released commercially (twice),[32] so any arguments that it should be treated purely as a demo don't wash. There's also quite a bit of coverage about, particularly relating to the sleeve art - The cultic milieu: oppositional subcultures in an age of globalization, Gigwise.com, Chiesa News, LA Weekly. Perhaps not in-depth coverage, but it's an official release by a notable band and there's no problem with verifiability.--Michig (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep mets gnThisbites (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Crossen[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG as mentions of him in second and third party sources are trivial at best and usually not independent of the subject. Also not notable as an author or filmmaker per WP:CREATIVE. Nikki♥311 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's a vanity-press writer who's been spamming Wikipedia with his non-notable self-glorifications [33], most of which I'm not yet done tracking down. Qworty (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial independent third-party sources whatsoever.--Korruski^Talk 12:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:V Chzz ► 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that Qworty (talk) has some kind of personal vendetta against the subject matter. The article itself contains several notable third party references and doing a simple google search you can find even more. Just because Qworty (talk) does not like or agree with the subject matter in question should in no way give it any kind of merit for deletion. Independent news agencies such as KSTP-TV [34], Star Tribune [35] and CANOE [36] are all good independent sources that have featured articles on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.174.67
Comment. The trivial local coverage offered here does not meet the standards for WP:CREATIVE. Also be aware that this is part of a WP:WG series of three articles created by a WP:SPA for WP:SPAM purposes. All three articles are up for AfD, nominated independently by three separate editors. The other two AfDs are here: [37][38] Finally, it should be noted that in all three AfDs, the only person thus far to vote keep has been an anonymous ISP from the subject's hometown, thus perpetuating the original WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His film may be notable, but notability isn't inherited and Crossen himself seems to have no independent coverage at all. EEng (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I will admit that I am located in the Midwest, I am in no way affiliated with this author. But I do find his story fascinating and definitely a very interesting piece of history to say the least. While it may be true that Crossen personally has little independent coverage, but then again, the significance of what he did took place nearly 25 years ago, so not having any coverage today is no surprise. I think what is important here is the content, or the significance of what took place. His story has significant importance in the history of wrestling for the time frame it took place, what he did was indeed historical. His Book Pro Wrestling Kids' Style and DVD NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story are basically a documentation in media form that describes a very historical and unique series of events that would be considered significant to certain history buffs, especially those in professional wrestling. I am no expert on all the rules of Wikipedia, but having read this book, and watched the DVD, this is the kind of person that I feel should be remembered for what he did... not for his recent endeavors, but for what he did back in time. Honestly, isn't that the purpose for Wikipedia in the first place? For those of you wanting to "Delete", are you basing this on Crossen's actual accomplishments and contributions he made historically? Or is it all about how much you can find 25 years later surfing the web? This is certainly a question worth asking, but please, know his story before answering, otherwise you're just judging a book by its cover. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it doesn't matter what he did, only what people (other than he i.e. his own book and movie don't count) said about it 25 years later. If no one's written anything about it, it's not notable for Wikipedia purposes. EEng (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup As discussed in a related AfD,[39] you've stretched the assumption of good faith past the breaking point with your coy statement that you're "located in the Midwest," which is disingenuous to the point of being a lie: your IP locates you in a small town (pop. 2000) which happens to be Crossen's residence. Unlike the mainspace articles, which will be invisible after deletion, these AfD discussions are available permanently -- perpetual monuments to your sad efforts to keep milking the achievement of your teenage glory years. EEng (talk) 06:03, 31 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) 00:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumetal[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Word was "coined" today according to previous revision of article. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous revisions claiming coined today are incorrect. Term has been used for years. Article being updated and referenced and properly informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadPhallinger (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete — I have no opinion about whether it should be kept, but if it's judged unworthy of existing in its current state, convert it into a redirect to instrumental. Nyttend (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect, afterwards, if you think it is a plausible type; no problem there - redirects are cheap. But the term is certainly a neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Can't see it having significant coverage. And the reason I suggest delete before redir is, otherwise this kind of unreferenced (thus pretty useless) pseudo-info has a habit of just reappearing. WP:V. Chzz ► 15:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism without any significant coverage, or prospect of such in the future.--Korruski^Talk 11:41, 26 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) 00:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Afzal[edit]

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

Nothing in the article, nor any further information accessible in references or elsewhere, appear to provide adequate demonstrations of notability, as defined in WP:N - specifically neither in WP:ACADEMIC, nor elsewhere in WP:BIO. As far as I can tell the possible reasons for notability are: that Mo Afzal is a particularly inspiring science teacher to sixth form students - organising events such as Showcase Science; that he is Chief Executive of The Afghan Education Trust; and his winning of the Medicine in Society Impact award from the Wellcome Trust. My reasons for suspecting that none of these may be of due notability are that neither Showcase Science nor the Afghan Education Trust appear to be particularly notable, and it is difficult to make a judgement on the Medicine in Society Impact award as the reference attached to it is no longer there. Perhaps someone can advise as to the significance of this award? Gandaliter (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth form students would dispute that he was "particularly inspiring", and Showcase Science has ceased to exist.G N Frykman (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless an actual policy-based reason for deletion is given. People don't stop being notable. Just because press coverage about him has ceased, doesn't make all the existing press coverage vanish. He easily passes the WP:GNG. In the history of this article I've seen edits by people who clearly didn't like the subject of the article: is dislike of the subject - such as that snide comment from GN Frykman - the real reason for this deletion nomination from a little-used account? Fences&Windows 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG notes that it provides reason for "presumed" notability, but that notability depends on the specific content of the article. As it is, although Afzal has been mentioned in several secondary sources, and the topic of a few, none of them seem to be about anything which is itself notable. For example the Science for the 21st Century Initiative is the main topic of some of the sources, but it has not been considered notable enough by anyone to create a page for it on Wikipedia - perhaps it is notable enough (although I would not say so), and a page should be created for it. Surely if the press coverage is not sufficient to give notability to the topics which it directly addresses, it is also not sufficient to provide notability for someone whose supposed current notability relies on that topic. As I mentioned before there seem to be three of these associations which might provide notability: his being an inspiring science teacher (which has been contested); the Afghan Education Trust (which again does not seem to be notable in itself, so how could it convey notability to its chief executive?), and the award from the Wellcome Trust (for which there are no secondary sources, which would seem to imply that the particular award given is not notable). Of course dislike is not a reason for deletion, but perhaps we can assume from the quantity of vandalism this page has suffered that there are many who would disagree with the opinions expressed in the sources, and reproduced here (such as that Afzal is an inspiring teacher). Also the lack of any sources from scientific journals would perhaps imply that Afzal is not a notable academic. Gandaliter (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total of 3 cites on GS. There really does not seem to be much else of note. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 25 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) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable under WP{:PROF, and I don't see notability in any other aspect either. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only things the article presents as noteworthy about him are a minor service award and a science fair competition of unspecified locality. That's not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 25 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 Overblood#Characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pipo the robot[edit]

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

Particularly not notable. I'm not familiar with cataloguing what appears to be a secondary character, and the claim of "Pipo gained great fame"? The only ref is to gameinformer.com. WP:NOTNEWS & WP:BURDEN. Phearson (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon17freeman (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)gordon17freeman I added some more references. Is there something else you think I should do?[reply]

See the talk page. But I seriously doubt this will pass as is. Phearson (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the secondary character Alyx Vance from Half-life also has her own Wikipedia page. Gordon17freeman (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)gordon17freeman[reply]

Could you possibly give me about one more hour to expand on the article? Gordon17freeman (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfDs last seven days unless more time is need to get consensus. This is not a CSD, whereas the article may be deleted by an admin right away. Good Luck! Phearson (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Edison (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial fictional subject with no evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overblood#Characters. Not enough coverage to warrant an article on itself WP:GNG. Chzz ► 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I cleaned it up and added some reception. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant to Overblood, which is so short that nothing should be split off at this time per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Characters that only appear in one or two fictional works shouldn't (generally) have a separate article anyway. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. 1 C-class is better then 2 starts. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:09, 26 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afrijitsu Combative System[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about a non-notable martial art. It makes no claims of notability and has no independent sources. I could find no reliable sources that show it is notable. The original AfD discussion result was to "userfy and delete". Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, so fails notability. Edison (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources that show notability and the article doesn't make any notability claims. I don't see how this passes WP:MANOTE. I also don't understand how the first AfD said "delete", but the article remained. Astudent0 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [40]. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Smith[edit]

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

Losing politician with a detailed drink driving conviction attached to it, what with the so called controversy section and the drink driving section being bigger than her quite limited political notability, I think there are WP:BLP issues coupled with undue weight and a general limited notability I think the wikipedia and the world and the subject are better of without this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has been a candidate for Parliament and has service in local government but neither is an automatic foundation of notability. I detect no other reason for notability; her criminal conviction seems only to have merited attention because of her position as a Parliamentary candidate. Hence she is not notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article for several reasons. Firstly the conviction is notable (previous discussions have deemed drink driving convictions by politicians especially notable and worthy of their own category). When considering the conviction one has to consider the circumstances too - she was not just caught drink driving but also crashed the vehicle whilst more than double the drink drive limit and was arrested. This notability is heightened by the timing of the event, occurring just days before the General Election and as a result there has been significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] One should consider that it wasn't just any seat being contested, but a key marginal, which had already received significant national coverage [46] in part due to the notability of the third placed candidate Anna Arrowsmith and sources seem to suggest the incident had a significant impact on the outcome of the contest. On top of this there's the lengthy legal process and change of plea etc. As others have said there is also Smith's lengthy career in local government/politics, with the main notable aspect of that being her controversial role in selecting the Labour candidate for the 2000 London Mayoral Election through denying individual votes to 50,000 co-operative party members (a large amount of coverage of this also). Finally her senior role at the Co-operative bank again adds to notability. I believe that this combined with everything else and coverage going back over a decade means Smith meets general notability criteria. We're not just looking at someone known for one thing either due to the voting controversy and I do take issue with the above use of the term "so called" as the incident was clearly controversial at the time (even significant concern in the Guardian!)[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. Update, also worth noting that Smith was suspended by Labour for bringing the party into disrepute (they didn't even do this for some of those involved in the expenses scandal), and finally for anyone with a sense of humour there's also the issue of name of the road where the crash occurred --Shakehandsman (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be of marginally confirmed notability independent of the drunk driving. Edison (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. She's only 'notable' for the drink-driving (her political career wouldn't be enough for an article by itself), as that's the only context in which she's received significant coverage; but that's not enough grounds for notability by our standards. Keeping this article would, I believe, be a violation of WP:BLP. Robofish (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see evidence of notability from the election thing, as the table given wouldn't be 'significant coverage'. Therefore, it does seem like someone known just for one event, viz. the drink-driving - and this is exactly what BLP1E is designed to cover. Unless evidence of notability for other events could be found, then this is inappropriate. Chzz ► 15:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources for the London Mayoral voting controversy as one of the Guardian links was missing. It even made one paper's review of the year, although being in 1999 there's obviously not quite as much material online as with more recent stories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs)

Delete Classic, one-event made biography, made worse by the fact that the focus on the one event violates WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwlaw63 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious case of BLP1E... does not meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see WP:POLITICIAN - Councillor = NN; failed Parliamentary candidate - NN; drunk driver = NN; Nothing notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a politician, drink driving conviction does not make a non-notable person notable. Warofdreams talk 10:39, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Brat Pack[edit]

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

There is a distinct lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be original research. The only source cited in the article does not actually use the term "New Brat Pack". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: David Blum's coinage of Brat Pack in 1985 spread far and wide and is part of the cultural history of the 1980s as evidenced by numerous sources. This 1997 reference to a "neo-Brat Pack" does not appear to have spread at all; the phrase "new brat pack" has been used many times, but for many different circumstances.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huron County Library[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't pass the general notability guideline for such articles written about libraries, nor does it go beyond any other run-of-the-mill libraries scattered around, and also called "Huron County Library". There is some information about the librarian "Miss A. Rose Aitken", but that would warrant an article about her, not the library itself. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as this is utterly unnotable. 06:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcsuper (talk • contribs)
Delete not notable --Guerillero | My Talk 15:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there is no clear guideline for libraries. I'm relatively exclusionist on local institutions, and I've often !voted delete on local libraries. I think a reasonable consensus would be that individual branches are certainly not notable, but county systems are, at least in larger counties, (this one is 60,000) on the same principle that school districts are. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say a weak keep on this. I personally think articles on county libraries are certainly no less notable than articles we have on local schools on wikipedia and more notable in my view... Google books does reveal 147 different sources mention this so adding sources is possible. I agree with DGG though that there really ought to be guidelines on this. Providing this article is expanded and sourced decently i'm content to keep it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, some of them might be about a different "Huron County Library". Like I said above, what distinguishes this Ontario, Canada one from the others? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the user above. I think library systems being handled similar to school systems is a fair way to treat their notability. There are probably local sources describing their funding, and may be some controversies arising on a local level, or programs that they offer, that could help to to their notability.(only place to vote for elections, or maybe doubles as an important meeting place for many local instutions, etc).--AerobicFox (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the problem is there are no significant meeting places or votes for elections etc. held here that I could find. It is this specific institution that I'm referring to, not any other library. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just saying that library systems should most definitely not be handled like school systems. The idea that all school systems are "inherently notable" is a fallacy that we should work on overcoming. The last thing we need is a declaration that all county libraries (and other local buildings) are de-facto notable. Them From Space 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that would be a headache--Guerillero | My Talk 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem, unless we are suddenly running out of server space. Edison (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see an analogy to schools. Library systems are not generally notable—funding is a tiny fraction of funding for education, and the impact on a municipality or county is relatively insignificant. The notion that everything that is goes through a public funding debate is somehow notable doesn't stand up—are we to have an article on the West Podunk Phase II Auxiliary Sewage Treatment Facility? ^Bongo_matic 02:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect or Merge to Huron County, Ontario. After all, the library system is part of the county government. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not just a library, but an entire library system that in itself should be worth of inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were any notability to this building at all, the article would consist of more than hours of operation and location. Not really an article, it's a phone book listing. Agent 86 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not just an article about a building. In a county of 60,000, it is likely that multiple reliable and independent sources, even if local or regional, have had significant coverage, justifying a presumption of notability. A county library system article is a useful collective article to list the (presumably) nonnotable local libraries. Similarly, county school districts have gained "Keep" results in all recent AFDs, and serve as collective articles for all the (presumably) nonnotable elementary schools. Edison (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary sources? No. Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Sounds like it should probably be notable, but the sources don't seem to show it. One local news piece, one possibly non-independent bulletin... sorry, but have to go delete unless someone can find a bit more. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge as I said before.. Could merge into Huron County, Ontario...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete No indication of notability, insufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. This article fails WP:NOT as it reads like a directory listing. Including a list of the libraries into Huron County, Ontario and including the image there would be appropriate but there is no need to list details such as street addresses or opening hours.Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several snippet view results from Google Book Search, but it is impossible from the snippets to see how extensive each hit is: [54], [55], :"There are twenty libraries belonging to the Huron County Library Association. Until this past fall our work has been only ... Librarian, Huron County Library Association, Gode- rich, Ontario, Canada. Our organization differs from most ...", "..The Huron County Library Distribution Truck. Each three months, this truck brings a fresh selection of books- to libraries in small communities throughout the county. The truck is arranged with shelves, holding 1.000 books. ...", "..Recorded development is confined mainly to the work of the Huron County Library, which operates an exhibition van, the first of its kind in the province, whose work has received great publicity through the showing of a film called 'The books drive on..'". Also, note that several classes of comparable subjects get kept automatically without providing multiple reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage, such as every school district. Edison (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those but I don't personally see how the snippets demonstrate notability. I also personally don't think we should have articles on every school district, unless they can themselves also demonstrate notability. Just because wikipedia policy on the inclusion of articles on schools is messed up is no reason to keep a directory listing on very un-noteworthy local libraries.Polyamorph (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Arguments pointing at de-facto notability do not fly with me-- every topic that has a stand alone article should have received at least some attention in the past. Our current practice of retaining articles about local buildings and organizations is too lax for my taste. If the library building itself can be shown to be historically notable, or if the library system can be shown to have had an historical impact on the community then I would be in favor of keeping the article. But "it exists" is not a reason to retain this. Them From Space 17:29, 25 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) 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT topics and Confucianism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/LGBT topics and Confucianism (2nd nomination)

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

This article was nominated for deletion in October 2008 and "kept" at that time. Since then, no additional text has been added, no additional source has been added. While no longer original research, the assertions are still largely unverified due to its use of a single source (and that single source's own speculative nature). The topic can be more than adequately dealt with in Homosexuality and religion. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prior discussion was not automatically linked: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Confucianism

Delete or Merge I would say merge into another article, but I've looked around and can find nothing to verify the information in the article beyond that one source. homosexuality in china might be a better place for this information (avoiding the philosophy vs. religion debate) if more sources can be found. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Confucianism section of Homosexuality and religion -- I already copied the text from this article to that section to facilitate a redirection. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little like circumventing the process. Are you that sure the information is reliable enough to be in any article? Wickedjacob (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is simple nonsense written to flesh out Template:Religion and LGBT topics. Remove this article from that template; it does not stand alone and there is nothing to be said here. Shii (tock) 02:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need for separate article. Almost all the information here is the same information in the numerous other related articles.

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 11:37, 31 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.