Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 March 9 March >

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 Keep. Although this is a couple of days early, it is clear this article will not be deleted. Therefore I am invoking WP:SNOW. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Angry Video Game Nerd[edit]

The Angry Video Game Nerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article about a Youtube show. While this is a long, well-written article, virtually every citation is for material from the creator of the show. I can't find sufficient, reliable, independent sources to show that it meets the WP:GNG. I posted a cleanup tag a month ago,[1] but no sources have been added.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per this and this and an award win from Mashable; kind of on the fence as far as sources go, but the award would suggest that he meets WP:WEB. (Also, he's hosted on Cinemassacre, not just YouTube.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is dvdtalk.com a reliable source? Your second link, Aonuma: "The Legend of Zelda-serie heeft tijdlijn", might go to the wrong page. If the article is kept, it'd have to be virtually stubbed and rebuilt based on independent sources. Also, is the Mashable award "well-known"? The material on it in Mashable is all self-published.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just searched the Proquest newspaper archive. Out of 39 hits, 35 are to press releases, 3 are to articles in the Jerusalem Post about an app they sponsored which won, and only one paper, the Orange County Register, has an independent article about a finalist for the award. So I don't think it necessarily qualifies as a well-known award.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I had figured Mashable was notable since it was enough for other websites to be kept. Still, I suck at source finding so I'll defer to others. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes to AFD just for completion; also warned IP for repeated removal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's this from March 3rd: Top 20 Angry Video Game Nerd Freak Outs by David Guzman, Assistant Editor of AllMediaNY. It could qualify as a valid third-party source. And it's recent (dug up from Google News), so potentially if we delay the verdict on this, more references will appear in time.—Biosketch (talk) 03:03, 9 March 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) 02:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with cleanup (excessive NFC) and recommended switch to the true main topic, James Rolfe. Since Rolfe does both AVGN and the Spike segments, and runs Cinemassacre, an article that covers all of these from the perspective of being a BLP would be better suited, w/ redirects as appropriate. This would keep the list of episodes since the DVDs themselves are notable (DVDtalk sources, at minimum). As for more sources on Rolfe, [2], [3], [4] for some (but again, focusing on Rolfe overall, not just AVGN). Also, I would call to light the recent deletion issues over the [Signpost] about the AFD/DRV of Old Man Murray, and recommend we aren't so hasty here. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also more sources can be found listed on this page [5] - recognizing that not all of them are RSs but more than a handful are, there's definitely sources out there. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • D'oh! I've been aware of the Swedish gaming magazine's interview for a good long time, but never got around to integrating it to the article, which brings us here. Gah. Sorry. With that and all the rest I say Keep. (And yes, non-English sources are acceptable. They are more cumbersome and English ones are to be preferred if there's a choice, but non-English ones are necessary on a project of our scope.) --Kizor 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no way this'll be anything by kept. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This is a major internet show that has recived an exteremly large amount of notability. I would suggest adding a few new sources though. Skullbird11 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but by all means, please continue to nominate this article for deletion. Perhaps it will make it on to the list of lamest deletion wars. Shakzor (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be too soon to add this. The shortest war listed on that page had 6 deletions attempts and three DRVs and counting the episode page for this topic we so far only has 4 AFD and no DRVs to the best of my knowledge. It may be possible that this should be added in the future but not yet.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the unnecessary summary. If you care to read my previous comment a bit more carefully, you will realize that I was not suggesting that this be added to that list just yet. Shakzor (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I did not read the original comment carefully enougfh.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale by Masem along with sourcing found. --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Come on, saying "it's just a YouTube show" is the equivalent of saying "it's just a Wikipedia article." More than 200m upload views, rabid fan base, etc.68.55.210.138 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yee-up. If we are to start deleting content for being stupid, we should start with our articles on wars. If we are to start deleting content for being obscure, that must include countless articles on regional customs, folklore, historical events and other things that are vital to an encyclopedia. In fact, an objective popularity requirement might well mean that we should delete all our articles on lesser-known species and much of our coverage of physics, biology, et cetera. A popularity requirement without an objective standard would destroy the site. Will Beback, could you explain why the show's origins is relevant here? --Kizor 12:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Masem. Article could use some work down to add some more reliable sources. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Skullbird and Masem. -Drdisque (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Masem, but oppose rename per WP:COMMONNAME CTJF83 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see a well-written, informative article that does meet Wikipedia's standards. Deletion is way overkill here and would not improve Wikipedia one bit. This seems to me like a test-the-waters kind of nom and probably shouldn't have been made. -- œ™ 07:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't come close to meeting Wikiepdia's standards. Per WP:PSTS, articles should be based mostly on secondary and tertiary sources. This article is based almost entirely on the episodes themselves, which are primary sources for this article. to bring it into compliance with WP standards it needs to be re-written based on new sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, articles should be based mostly on secondary and tertiary sources in order to verify their content and determine notability. So what are you trying to verify here? What is "challenged or likely to be challenged"? I don't see anything that can't be verified from the given primary sources. Unless, are you seriously questioning AVGN's notability as a modern internet video game review show? or Youtube site? or viral video? or internet meme? It's notable in all these categories. And everything can be verified from the given sources. -- œ™ 10:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Verifiability and notability are two separate issues. What Will Beback is asking for is evidence that the topic is notable. As notability is not simply popularity or page views or even personal attribution, he's completely right to ask "where is verification that the topic is notable?" Now to answer him, we've shown in here a large number of sources that demonstrates that AVGN is notable, but yet are not presently in the article prior to this AFD. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Independent secondary sources are required to show notability. Just because a a video gets a Xillion hits on Ztube doesn't make it notable. The topic has to have been noted independently, and there was little sign in the article that that had happened to AVGN. It's the same standard for garage bands, political ideologies, etc. I'd be happy for the article to stay and I hope that everyone who's participated in this AFD will each add at least one outside source to the article, settling the question of its notability. The fact that it's entirely based on primary sources will still need to be resolved.   Will Beback  talk  09:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One reliable source I've found: [6] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be kept. Very useful information for the general public as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.159.162 (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You would not remove information on a regular TV show even if it was a bad and canceled tv show would you? Ignoring it for its chosen channel of distribution is just strange. Would his page on imdb be allowed as source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.34.95.20 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not since IMDB is user edited. However, there appear to be much better sources for this and an emerging consensus to keep this so baring a flood of deletion comments I don't see anything to worry about.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasoning of numerous others.--Yankees10 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep – Including what Masem and others have provided, he also made CNN. –MuZemike 21:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The issue of whether or not this should be a redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Twist (Gilmore Girls)[edit]

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

This is a single episode of the show Gilmore Girls. As WP:EPISODE makes clear, episodes of TV shows must, like all other articles, meet the general notability guidelines. This article has no sources to establish general notability, nor is it likely to ever have such sources (it is rare for a TV show to do so). Until and unless this can be shown to meet GNG, it should be redirected to List of Gilmore Girls episodes. I'll have restored the non-redirected version for the duration of this discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1. It's not necessary to invoke the AfD process if you want to redirect an article.—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep/redirect/close, doesn't need a debate, coulda been redirected without one. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In fact, I did; this was a redirect for several years, before another editor yesterday decided to revert to the older article. After the user reverted my turning this back into a redirect, and since it technically did survive an AfD once before, I thought it nicer to go ahead with a formal AfD. In other words, I am nominating the page for deletion under the grounds that it doesn't meet WP:GNG; as a result of the (I believe inevitable) deletion, a redirect would be left. I want it to be clear to other editors that whether or not this is a standalone article is a matter of compliance with the guidelines, not just a regular content dispute that would be resolved on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Here's how I see it. Yes, the article needs a lot of work, as it reads now it is little more than a plot summary. However, I don't see quite why you talk like a completed article has no place on Wikipedia. The last time this, and several other GG pages were brought up for deletion, the consensus was "keep" but rework, and I think that still stands. There are numerous television episodes that have their own page here on Wikipedia. The television show Firefly, while only running for a limited number of episodes, has a separate page for each episode. There are television episode pages for a number of television shows that are now on the air, Desperate Housewives, Glee, How I Met Your Mother, and we're not just talking one or two particularly special episodes, we're talking every single episode. Now take Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Angel. Both on the WB at the same time as Gilmore Girls, and in Buffy's case, had 7 seasons like Gilmore Girls. There is an article for every single one of their episodes. How are their episodes any more "notable"? I propose that the article is kept and that instead of wasting time arguing about its notability, we try to think of ways to improve it. Xylogirl07 (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Instead of pointing out other articles that may not meet guidelines (I haven't looked at those articles), you need to demonstrate how this particular article meets WP:GNG. Also, you are correct that this is a second nomination. The prior nomination was over 3 years ago (and, over time, both explicit policy and implied community practices have changed). Furthermore, there is no restriction on nominating an article for deletion a second, third, or even tenth time (as long as the nominations are in good faith and continue to be policy based). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LoE. No sufficient non-plot material to leave this as a stand-alone article per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SPLIT. WP:NOTABILITY hasn't been established (just a single ref), but with such popular shows it's better to redirect than to delete so the ep article can be restored if and only if someone actually works on it to prove notability. – sgeureka t•c 09:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that two shows (Buffy and GG) both from the same network (WB) at around the same time period (Buffy 97-03) (GG 00-07) with similar popularity, are worth comparing. Especially when I'm not just talking about Buffy having one or two articles, but an entire series worth and GG having next to none. I also don't understand how the implied community practices have changed all that much when new articles for television series are being created and also kept and worked on with no threat to deletion. As for the notability of this episode, it is an episode in which the main character of a 7 season long television show gets married. I think that has some weight in its notability. I added some interviews that I found online as well as fleshed out the article much in the style of television articles that are on wikipedia now. Xylogirl07 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, I have reverted your edits as they were WP:COPYVIOs, WP:IN-UNIVERSE WP:TRIVIA (not production notes) and a 404 Error (edit: I'm too stupid to c&p URLs). – sgeureka t•c 15:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you like to improve the article (a noble cause) but don't know what's expected of wikipedia episode articles, there are some episode articles at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Arts#Theatre, film and drama. – sgeureka t•c 15:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My argument above was not that 'just because these other articles exist, this one should too', it was to find some sort of answer to the WHY of it all. Why do all of these articles go through the radar for so many years and this one is targeted? Is there a WAY to bring this one up to the standard? By comparing this episode to ones like it, I was trying to find an answer to that problem. Please don't just dismiss me with Wikipedia policies. Xylogirl07 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"As for the notability of this episode, it is an episode in which the main character of a 7 season long television show gets married. I think that has some weight in its notability." No one has yet to address that though.Xylogirl07 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an "in-universe" reason why the show is "notable." This is not the same thing as "notable by Wikipedia's definition." That is, the key question is not, "Did the events that occurred in this episode have an important effect on the plot line of the show?" The question that must be answered affirmatively for this article to be kept is, "Did this episode receive coverage in multiple, independent sources"? I took a look at the refs you just added, and I don't believe that they are enough. Reference three is the best, but it doesn't say what you claim it says--it's just a reviewer's comments on the show (that is, it doesn't mention fan reaction at all). Still, it's helpful, as not every single episode of every show gets a review, but we need more. The Graham interview barely mentions this episode, so I don't think that counts as significant coverage. The Crushable interview does not appear to meet the reliable source guidelines. If the article isn't redirected, then we'll probably to remove it; for now I just added a tag. So, in summary, the second source does help establish notability of this episode, and the third source helps a tiny bit. We need more to justify keeping this as a stand-alone article. By the way, please don't feel bad about any of this--the nature of the way Wikipedia defines notability is such that it is very unlikely that most episodes will have their own article. Yes, as you point out, many shows do, even though they shouldn't; but the solution is to eventually go through and weed those out, not to add more. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question about the crushable interview: The interview cites that it was done by a journalist that writes for TV Guide. He himself was cited as the author of the Lauren Graham interview. Is there maybe a better copy of the interview out there? The original source from a reliable website? I feel that the interview itself might say something for its notability, but I do agree that the website it comes from is pretty sketchy. Xylogirl07 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Qwyrixan, I definately am not taking this personally. I agree with you that the resolution of this dispute should be in the best interest of wikipedia. I'm an avid wikipedia reader, and a sparatic wikipedia editor, so I'm not completely in the know about every policy and procedure. I merely saw what I felt was a void in information, compared to the hundreds of other Television episode pages out there and wanted to improve it if I could. (I'm not arguing here so please don't everybody jump up to throw this argument at me. I've seen it.) I do appreciate that you are taking the time to listen to me instead of just throwing wikipedia policies at me. If it gets kept, great. Maybe there is a way to improve. If it gets deleted/redirected, then no worries. Xylogirl07 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thought! I have a bunch of books on GG in referance to gender studies and critical essays (i.e. Coffee at Luke's) I'm not sure if any of it would be relevant to this episode in particular (I'll have to look it up when I go home) but if the episode was mentioned, would that be appropreate to cite? Xylogirl07 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those would absolutely work. If this episode is discussed in detail (it doesn't have to be the main topic of the article, but it has to be more than just a passing reference), and those essays are reliable sources (i.e., published in an academic journal/book, not on a blog or fanzine), then those will likely establish this episode as notable. As Inbluejeans says below, one or two more sources would be just enough to push this over into a keep, and if those sources are added, I will definitely change my !vote to keep. Alternatively, if you aren't able to find the sources now, but find them later after deletion, you can always ask the deleting admin to put a copy into your userspace, where you can keep working on it until such time as you can get it to reach the guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Provided that more sources are available to prove this article is indeed up to the standards of general notability guidelines. I believe one or two more sources would achieve this. The article itself needs a bit more cleanup to meet wikipedia's guidelines as well. Inbluejeans (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:GNG. BigDom 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shabir (detainee)[edit]

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

"Shabir" is the name of an individual imprisoned or formally imprisoned at the US detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan. The only information the US military published about him was his name and his prison number. I think we do not know who this individual really is and we do not know when and why the US military imprisoned him and what happened to him. The second part of the article mentioned an alleged Taliban leader with the name "Shabir" and one commentator speculated that this might be the individual mentioned on the published list but i think we do not know this and even if i think this fails: WP:GNG, WP:BIO IQinn (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete no evidence of notability.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Primary sources are allowed as per WP:PRIMARY. There is no speculation being done here; secondary source Andy Worthington writing in Truthout is the "one commentator" who "speculated". PRIMARY correctly notes that speculation is the only concern (Original Research) with using primary sources. GNG etc are incorrect WP:CREEPs of the concern in PRIMARY. Anarchangel (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole Primary / Secondary system is critically flawed, too. A jet crash survivor suffering from shock being interviewed on the airport runway and Supreme Court rulings should not be in the same grouping without some distinction being made.
Comment If you want to change core policies that might not be the right place here. Primary sources do not count towards notability as per WP:GNG. As simple as that and even all sources together do not add up to "significant coverage" also needed per WP:GNG. No offence but it seems to me that you do not understand our basic core policies. WP:GNG is one of the most established and important one we have based on a wide community consensus and Afd's are not based on !votes. They are based on policy based arguments. IQinn (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's as good a place as any to start, when one considers the enormity of the task. I already said that GNG was incorrect, just quoting it at me isn't addressing what I said. No, it is not simple at all, and no, that is just absurd; the only reason any of these articles have been deleted is by discounting the primary sources. None taken, but you are mistaken; I can practically recite them out loud in my sleep. Neither established nor important, nor how many erring people worked on them prevents them from being erroneous. Finally, even if I had not frequently pointed out that AfDs are supposed to be based on votes, myself, despite all evidence to the contrary, what part of an argument against policy is not a policy based argument, exactly?. Anarchangel (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may can recite the policies but you do not respect the community consensus they reflect. Wikipedia_talk:Notability that's the place for you to go. Until then WP:GNG is valid and this article fails WP:GNG in multiple ways that i personally think your argumentation in this Afd is a bit of a waste of time. Please that this not an offence and i have given you the link to the place where you can try to change established core policies. Good luck. IQinn (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject has not been the subject of secondary sources, and fails notability requirements accordingly. Being a Detainee does not make one notable. I searched for him in google, and came up with nothing.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indication of the existence of a topic through a single primary source does not demonstrate notability for inclusion. I can take a picture of my mailbox to prove its existence but that doesn't mean it warrants an article. Until the time "Shabir" receives recognition from reliable, neutral and independent third party sources as being notable as an independent subject this article fails to meet the inclusion criteria. This is an encyclopedia not an information database. On a side note to the original author of the article: this material may warrant note in an umbrella article on confirmed detainees. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice The article's creator has been chronically problamatic with article creation of this sort in the past. For those interested editors an RFC was started a month ago. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what little coverage there is of this guy is hardly "significant", as such its not notable under the WP:GNG. All we seem to know is his name and where he was captured (although that isn't even referenced). Anotherclown (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously an actual person. -- Kendrick7talk 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to be an "actual person" does not solve the problem that this fails our basic notability guidelines as WP:GNG by a large margin. IQinn (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No need for the salt shaker quite yet but I'll keep an eye on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brontobyte[edit]

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

Delete without redirect, and WP:SALT A neologism with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Promotional coat rack article for a Polish company. Repeatedly recreated by probable WP:SPAs on behalf of the corporation (see User:Brontobajt & User:Brontobajt.pl). Cybercobra (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find only this, and similarly passing/jocular usages in unreliable sources. It's not even clear whether the unit is well-defined or just a byte-equivalent of "kajillion". --Cybercobra (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content. Either salt as suggested by Cybercobra, or redirect to Non-SI unit prefixes#Unofficial prefixes and protect (maybe temporary full protection then long-term semi-protection?). No significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG so a separate article is not justified. There are, however, several mentions in reliable sources going back at least 20 years — 2nd hit on the above GBooks search is a 1991 edition of MacUser (which defines it as a mere 109 megabytes = 1 petabyte, so it appears not to be well-defined). Qwfp (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect Non-notable until defined by a standards organization. I know that that's a high bar, but it really isn't worth a mention until then. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigDom 23:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Plessner[edit]

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

tagged since 2008 for lack of notability and still no substantive evidence? TeapotgeorgeTalk 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I've updated links etc. but this looks like a typical working artist's biography, without indication of meeting WP:ARTIST notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable as written, plus no refs. FieldMarine (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. I did find this but it falls short of significant coverage by quite a bit. J04n(talk page) 13:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Dowd[edit]

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

Non-notable person fails WP:GNG CTJF83 21:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, could not find any sources. Jehorn (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. The Ghits are for another Ben Dowd. StAnselm (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "nationally-known" claim, but no sources to attest. Book referenced does not appear when searching for '"my life and times" "ben dowd"'. Searching for 'bible missionary church ben dowd' does not yield any results that attest to any notability.—C45207 | Talk 07:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big East Conference Men's Basketball Rookie of the Year[edit]

Big East Conference Men's Basketball Rookie of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The line needs to be drawn somewhere with college basketball "awards". Players and coaches of the year in Division I conference are definitely notable, as they represent the best overall in their respective designations. If we start going into "Rookie of the Year", it will snowball into Defensive Player of the Year, Sixth Man of the Year, etc. These awards are overkill. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • DUAL NOMINATION: I am also nominating Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Rookie of the Year for the same reasons. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep times two. Well-done articles that meet the standards for Wikipedia lists, at a minimum. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a poor rationale for nomination for deletion. Carrite (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was waiting for someone to use "I don't like it" to blanket my nomination. I provided reasoned arguments with logic, not "this is stoopid it shouldnt be on wikipedia lolz". Besides, if you want to argue semantics, ALL deletion nominations can be boiled down to IDONTLIKEIT. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There wasn't long to wait, eh? The line needs to be drawn somewhere... These awards are overkill. That's pretty much textbook "I Don't Like It." Carrite (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written, good structure and notable. Kante4 (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator by citing Wikipedia:Snowball clause indirectly references WP:IAR.  I don't see that Wikipedia editors should take a WP:IAR stand against trivial awards, nor do the sources agree that Big East rookie of the year is trivial.  FYI, here is the San Diego coverage of this year's Big East Rookie of the year, here.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would have initially agreed with the nominator, but proper of the policy would necessitate a keep vote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Don't see a problem with an article about a notable award. Rlendog (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish lobby in the United States[edit]

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

This is way too non-neutral from the get-go. The sources verify that the Turkish government lobbies the US--as does just about every other entity in the world. There is not an iota of evidence that there is such a concept as "the Turkish lobby," with a single definition and a single set of goals. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There is not an iota of evidence that there is such a concept as "the Turkish lobby,"" except, of course, for detailed articles form ProPublica, the Washington Post and the New York Times documenting that the government of Turkey spends millions of dollars every year lobbying the government of the United States. I also wish to note that Wikipedia has an article on China lobby and on Arab lobby in the United States . I was editing that article when I saw how big the lobbying effort of the Turkish government is. It did not seem appropriate to add the material to Arab lobby in the United States, so I started this page. I think, actually, that the amount of money and influence is so large that each of the foreign governments on this page http://www.propublica.org/article/adding-it-up-the-top-players-in-foreign-agent-lobbying-718 merits an independent article about its influence on the government of the Untied States.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The implication of your list is an Ad hominem argument, and even if it were our business to speculate on WP:OTHERSTUFF there is no reason to suppose that those articles would not necessarily be appropriate; they would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Please address the matter at hand. Anarchangel (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is an ad hominem. I think you are misreading my assertion: none of these are appropriate. I have yet to see anyone here address the substantive difference between a lobby and some lobbying efforts. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News hit, even for the entire unwieldy title US Congress Debates Armenian Genocide Use "Turkish lobby" instead, and there are 134 hits from such disparate sources as Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Pittsburgh Press, BBC News, NPR, McClatchy, Times of India, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today and RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty.
Nom has not shown that the subject is inherently POV, or that supposed PoV content is chronic or irreparable. I don't see any PoV in the article as it stands, either. I do see that it would be preferable to get more information about their other activities (assuming they have some), but that sort of depends on them, and news coverage of them. There must be something in the 134 news hits, but I only saw Armenian genocide related stories. Anarchangel (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are hits (I see 129). But I note that a lot of those hits are in direct quotes, and not all of them are in reliable sources. Moreover, I'm still waiting to see a decent definition of what this Turkish lobby is. Arab lobby in the United States and Jewish lobby offer some kind of definition, a history, etc. If "Turkish lobby" is simply a term for the lobbying efforts by the Turkish government, that's not--in my opinion--an encyclopedic topic. The article lists a number of people and amounts, but as I said above, that would apply to just about every country in the world and a lot of NGOs and other organizations as well (think "higher education" or "agriculture").

In a word, I don't see evidence of an entity as a Turkish lobby--what I see is "Turkish lobbying efforts in the United States." Turks lobbying do not automatically a Turkish lobby make.

My "non-neutral" qualification stems also from the Armenian issue (and there is no Armenian lobby in the United States, though there may well be an Armenian lobby in the United States), which is really the only specific thing mentioned in the article (and in the sources, including that Google Search, since the 1970s). I am concerned that Turkish lobbying efforts (which would fall under Turkey – United States relations, for instance) are made, by virtue of news reports on Turkish lobbying, into an entity, a program--a bogey man of sorts. I am not suggesting that the author is some sort of pro-Armenian activist, not at all, but I am suggesting that there is a difference between efforts and entity. Does that make sense? Drmies (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this assertion and found that there is indeed an article on the Armenian American lobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I stand corrected. While the sourcing of that article isn't nearly as solid as it should be, its focus and description, even given the relative paucity of current references, are both broader and more sharply defined than that of the current Turkish lobby. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, the Armenian American lobby is made up of American citizens lobbying their own government (the government of Armenia opposes passage of the genocide resolution since it hopes to maintain good relations with Turkey). The Turkish lobby is an instance of a foreign government spending millions of dollars every year to lobby the American government. A far different matter. And a very important matter.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how is this not appropriate content for Turkey – United States relations? The 1.9 million dollar mentioned in the NYT article is less than what Morocco spends, and while it's more than I'll see in my life, in the grand scheme of things it's not that much. Besides, Gephardt, for instance, was paid for a job (as distasteful a job as it may have been), but one couldn't call him a "member" of this lobby. The Turks who paid him are government officials, and I doubt they have an office marked "Turkish lobby". All this is very much unlike the Armenian American lobby, under which one could subsume Armenian American Political Action Committee and a host of others. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but consider renaming), or Merge into Turkey – United States relations. This content is worth keeping, but I agree that the title isn't quite right - the subject of the article doesn't seem to be a lobby as that term is normally used (roughly, a collection of organisations and individuals campaigning for a particular position), but rather about lobbying by the Turkish government. That suggests this is more a subject to be covered in an article about bilateral relations; if kept separate, it should probably be renamed to something like Turkish goverment lobbying in the United States. Robofish (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robofish, thank you for actually addressing the point I was making. I could easily live with a merge. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that when a foreign government spends millions of dollars a year to lobby and make campaign donations to American Congressmen in pursuit of its political goals (which may not match those of American citizens) it is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 21:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The WP:BLP1E arguments were not fully refuted. There were calls to merge to James O'Keefe or NPR but both pages already have thorough coverage of the event. J04n(talk page) 15:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Schiller[edit]

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

126 news sources, according to Google--but I maintain this is WP:ONEEVENT, and nothing more than a name-and-shame to boot. We are not the news, and this is not how notability is achieved. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: This is a significant event based on news coverage in reliable secondary sources, schiller does not appear to have much notability apart from this though. Merge into the article about James O'Keefe and his videos. Warfieldian (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty easy to find extensive press coverage of his success as a fund raiser, most notably for the University of Chicago. There are lots of news articles about him before this incident.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with a merge, yes--but not with this current BLP violation that flies in the face of NPOV and any idea of balance. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The version (at the moment) doesn't seem to violate BLP content or sourcing-wise, and the statements are neutral. The violation if any would be a weight issue that it covers (albeit neutrally) only a single derogatory incident about a person who is potentially not notable. The NPR / secret tape incident is current news, and I'm sure this article will settle down soon, and we can iron out any lingering BLP and neutrality issues. The longer-term question is whether Schiller is notable. Query to I.Casaubon: would you mind listing some of those sources or adding them to the article? If that's true then he's probably notable and should have his own, balanced, article. I just couldn't find any in a quick google search. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article needs to be improved; this will occur naturally over time. Why is there a rush to delete this article? The rush to delete could be interpreted as a form of censorship. (I am not saying that it is censorship, but why invite the criticism?) This is a very significant event, and this might be the eventual cause of NPR "defunding".--74.0.166.140 (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if so, that doesn't alleviate the WP:BLP1E concern I have. Go through the article and try to decide what else this person is besides that one event: vice president of two minor offices at Chicago and Carnegie Mellon, to the tune of two sentences here and a bit here from the U of Chicago news outlet, and director of the Aspen Institute Arts Program, according to a press release. None of these things would have made him notable in their own right, separate or combined. This one event, no matter the press coverage these last few days, should not make him notable either. And given the obvious disparity between his previous jobs (about which no one can say anything, given that there are no sources) and the coverage of this scandal, the undue weight seems pretty obvious to me--see WP:UNDUE, fourth paragraph, for which this present article is a poster child. Finally, why the rush to delete? No, the shoe is on the other foot: why this rush to create the article? We are not the news, and all we can do--given the sources--is name the subject and shame him some more. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Wikidemon, I did put links to articles form the Denver Post and the Chicago Tribune into the third paragraph. These articles were published before the sting interview. There are others like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "all" he did was get the CEO of National Public Radio fired. And not because he "happened" to be in the right place at the wrong time, or something, but because of nasty, hateful things he actually said. And "all" he was director of fund raising for one of America's most important media corporations. And the story only led the news for two news cycles (days). and it was "only" on the front page of the New York Times, and "only" above the centerfold at that.
And at the University of Chicago he "only" was the director of fund raising who turned the University's financial situation around and led a 2 billion $ fundraising campaign, which made the news then and when he was hired by NPR http://www.uncsa.edu/pressreleases/Releases2009/Aug09/4NEWBOT.htm http://www.fundraisingsuccessmag.com/article/npr-names-ronald-j-schiller-senior-vice-president-development-president-npr-foundation-412047/1 http://www.artnowmag.com/Magazine/News/2011/Mar/News_Mar0711.html http://www.aspenbusinessjournal.com/article/id/418/sid/1 Raised $2 billion lately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 13:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I clicked and read the policy "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Ron Schiller shot Vivian Schiller dead. And that is a big deal in the American political world. This dude is going to stay in the news at least as long as political battles continue over funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Here's an editorial (not an op-ed, an editorial) from today's LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-npr-20110311,0,2244064.story?track=rss This is the kind of info that I personally go to Wikipedia to find. You use Wikipedia when you want to know something like: what was this dude's career before he got attacked by a video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really don't think Ronald Schiller is comparable in news notability to John Hinckley, Jr. I still don't see much in the way of reliable sources that refers his career prior to this incident. Do you really think he should have a Wikipedia article if it were not for this incident? If not, then he should be included in article that references the event for which he is notable. Warfieldian (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At least for the time being. It's valuable to have a place to collect the relevant information to provide a neutral biographical summary for those who are seeking it. It can be merged later on if, in retrospect, he is notable only for this event. —Morning star (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...and merge with the NPR article. (Oh look! Someone already did!) This page is nothing more than a current events scandal sheet about NPR funding, Tea Party Republicans, Muslims, liberal bias, Islamaphobes, fundamental Christians and racists. Oh, and almost as an afterthought, the following mini-resume content appears to have been appended to give the impression that this is a Biography of a Living Person:
Ronald Schiller is an American administrator of not-for-profit organizations. Schiller is a 1986 graduate of Cornell University. Schiller has previously been employed by Carnegie Mellon University, the Eastman School of Music, the New England Conservatory of Music, Cornell University and the University of Chicago. At Chicago he led a $2 billion fund raising campaign and increased donations from $160 million per year to over $500 million by 2009.
The other 87% of this article content is already duplicated in at least 2 other more appropriate Wikipedia articles. Notability for this person outside of events this week does not exist. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this incident is already covered in the NPR article. I'm not suggesting a merge because to just move all of this into NPR would give this incident very undue weight. As of now, he has little notability beyond this incident (beyond a high-up fundraising guy at NPR wouldn't warrant him an article). Kansan (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are lengthy profiles of him and his fund raising success at both Chicago and NPR; written before the sting video. He was very good at what he does, talking big donors into making major gifts. You have to google both Ron and Ronald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that you could find Google hits on fundraising leaders of many other organizations but that still would not make them notable enough for Wikipedia. There's more to notability than that. Kansan (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear WP:BLP1E, already sufficiently covered in the NPR and James O'Keefe articles. If this story becomes more significant than it currently is, I could accept a separate article along the lines of ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, but not (at this time) a biography. Ronald Schiller is not (yet) notable as a person; if he's notable at all, it's only for his role in this controversy. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E. There's nothing here except a couple of lines of resume material that can't be covered in the event article. If more substantial info or sources are found that cover him outside of that incident, the article can be recreated. Gamaliel (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per WP:BLP1E. Biography is notable only for the NPR event.--TM 16:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that I lack the experience of older editors, but this man was at the center of a really big event at a national radio network. I believe that an article is appropriate because of this alone. However, Since other editors appear to think (wrongly) that his career was trivial until this month, I am now adding material about his earlier career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Also Please note the dates of the articles about his appointment to the Aspen Institute; they predate the March 8 sting interview.[reply]

I put up a lot of information about his previous big-deal appointments to fundraising jobs, his success as a fundraiser, even his move to Aspen with his partner was covered in the press way back in 2005. I think guys who head departments in bid-deal institutions like the University of Chicago and NPR with notable (by the media) success are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rename to Israeli incursions into Lebanon and check the article to comply with the Neutral point of view policy (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 04:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignity[edit]

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

Hard to see how this article could ever be NPOV with such an axe-grinding title. —Chowbok ☠ 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, people should try to spell words correctly when creating articles.—Chowbok ☠ 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, the spelling has been changed. But you could had done so yourself easily, in the spirit of cooperation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I would support a keep if the content that wasn't about overflights/airspace was removed, and the article was renamed to be about that. The rest is still synthy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the name is a problem, then rename it, a bad name has never been a valid reason for deletion. This is a very notable and important issue in itself, and has been central to the Israeli/Lebanese conflict for decades. The article has many reliable sources, and I can see no valid reasons to delete it here other than "I don't like it". If it is to be merged, it would be into the larger Israeli/Lebanese conflict article, not the article about the 2006 war, since it is not directly related to that, but is about an issue that spans from 1982, and even before. This article is certainly more notable than an article about random rocket attacks since 2006, so go ahead and nominate that one too for balance. As for the aticle just being "a series of incidents", it could be rewritten so it isn't, of course. There are tonnes and tonnes of sources that deal with this issue, here is a bit solely about the overflights via Google books, for example: [8] FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: FunkMonk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The word "sovereignty" only has one "i" in it. When this AfD is closed the spelling should be corrected. The article is about an ongoing issue and is legitimate as an independent article. It could be merged in to the article called "Lebanon" however there is enough content in the article to justify a separate article.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 06:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the article could easily be expanded with many reliable sources. The spelling has long been corrected, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and remove POV assertions about sovereignty. Sources can be quoted claiming those things, but the article cannot, under current WP rules. If I had my way, WP could speculate as long as it was made crystal clear that it was intended only as speculation, but that's no more than a dream. We can say that someone else speculated, quote their speculations, but it would be controversial to call overflights a violation of sovereignty even if a court had ruled it. I recommend Israeli overflights in Lebanon, and wonder why Roscelese cites an existing article as grounds for deletion for another. Anarchangel (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC) I take back the suggestion; there are land and sea incursions as well. Perhaps Israeli incursions into Lebanon; it is a tough one. Anarchangel (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But who even denies incursions into the territory of a foreign country is a violation of sovereignty? It is by the very definition, not even the Israelis claim it is legal, they merely state the incursions are necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Anarchangel as Israeli incursions into Lebanon, if kept. Come on, the title as is is absurdly POV. We can and should do better. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Okay, after reading the comments here I've changed my mind and no longer think it should be deleted. Renaming it Israeli incursions into Lebanon seems a fair compromise.—Chowbok ☠ 20:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and re-edit: This article is obviously intended as a piece of POV-pushing. Its very name suggests it is non-neutral, and it interprets UN Resolutions in such a way that Israel's actions are openly declared illegal. This article must be completely reviewed, renamed, and re-edited to conform with Wikipedia's neutral policy.--RM (Be my friend) 20:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"POV pushing"? Whatever happened to "assume god faith"? I saw an article about an important topic was missing, so I created it, please refrain from making non-constructive accusations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'll assume you're god. :-) Seriously, the UN charter also allows for nations to act in self-defense and no doubt proponents of these incursions could make a case that Lebanon harbours an armed force which itself has attacked Israel. So again, I think we can come up with a more NPOV name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, which I mentioned above in my reply to Anarchangel. Israel maintains such incursions are necessary, but that does not make them any less of a violation of Lebanese sovereignty, no permission is asked for such incursions. Whether such a permission would ever be granted or not is irrelevant to whether Lebanon's sovereignty is violated. It could be argued that Hezbollah violates Lebanon's sovereignty as well by being armed, but two wrongs don't make a right, as might be obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone might think you're POV-pushing.—Chowbok ☠ 03:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Lebanese troops crossed Israels border without permission, how would it not be a violation of Israel's sovereignty? I just don't see where the "POV" comes in, stating it is over and over again doesn't really change anything. FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but Rename to something less POV. This does seem to be a notable topic, but the current name is unacceptable; I'm struggling to think of an appropriate one that would permit for a neutral article here. Israeli incursions into Lebanon would be a slight improvement, but suffers from many of the same issues. Israeli military actions in Lebanese territory, perhaps? Or Israeli overflights of Lebanese airspace, and restrict it to that subject? We may even have to consider something like Alleged Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty, much as I hate the word 'alleged' appearing in titles. I'm going to have to take some more time to think about this one; none of those names seem quite right. If an appropriate name can't be found, it may be evidence that this isn't a suitable topic for a NPOV article after all. Robofish (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I suppose I should explain why the current name is POV. Simply put, to say that one state is 'violating another's sovereignty' is a very strong claim; it's tantamount to a declaration that a state is acting illegally. We shouldn't do so unless either the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe these action in such language (which it seems they do not), or there's a clear statement by an objective organisation (basically, the UN) that these actions are illegal violations of sovereignty. Otherwise, we're making a statement ourselves on what is and is not legal, which violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. (And yes, I know it may seem like these actions are violations of sovereignty, but we simply can't make such inferences ourselves. Compare Drone attacks in Pakistan, an article on a somewhat similar topic which manages to avoid stating one way or another whether such attacks are legal or not.) Robofish (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and check for NPOV violations. I think this is a widely-enough covered topic that deserves inclusion but will inevitably suffer from POV issues. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty clear then, so can I go ahead and rename it, or should we wait until the vote is closed? FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ján Varga[edit]

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

Footballer who is yet to have made a fully professional appearance, thus failing WP:FOOTYN. Jared Preston (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The footballer has nothing to do with a previous unrelated discussion about someone with the same name. Jared Preston (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takahide Miyauchi[edit]

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

Football player who has not played at the professional or national level. At age 15, did play for Woodlands Wellington U18 team. Bgwhite (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Myfanwy Davies[edit]

The result was delete. Unanimous consensus for deletion. Further, the article in its present state reads like a press release; were the subject later becomes notable the article would still need to be re-written from scratch. -- llywrch (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN, no other explanation of notability. Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. The only claim of notability is having stood in an election, and that in itself does not confer notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable under our guideline for politicians. Article can be recreated if she is elected to a high office in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Webber[edit]

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

This is an MMA fighter that has never fought for a top tier MMA organization and thus fails WP:MMANOT. There's no indication he's notable for anything else and the only source given is for his fight record.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see today is your first day posting and you voted keep on a number of AfD discussions. Welcome to Wikipedia, but you might want to brush up on some of Wikipedia's policies. For example, WP:CRYSTALBALL says a person needs to be notable now, we can't know what the future holds. A "developing fighter" doesn't sound notable (or like one who's reached the top level of his profession) and he clearly doesn't meet the MMA notability guidelines at WP:MMANOT. The notability policy WP:N says that articles need significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, and this article also lacks those. When you vote, it's better if you give reasons (preferably based on WP policies). Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics characters who can fly[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Marvel Comics characters who can fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both of the other lists of fictional characters who can fly have been deleted: both List of fictional characters who can fly at this AfD and List of DC Comics characters who can fly at this AfD. These lists are all non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations that constitute original research; this article should therefore be deleted. Neelix (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That a character flies is empirically observable. Speculation is not required. Furthermore, no article subject is required to have an indivisible set of attributes. For example, UK Prime Ministers includes both the set United Kingdom and the set Prime Ministers. Inasmuch as the other two AFDs might have been based on the erroneous assumption that the articles were OR because of the reasons given above, their outcome would have been wrong. The nomination is entirely on the basis of the incorrect use of OR, and an WP:OTHERSTUFF-like quoting of outcomes. Other than the incorrect use of Logical conjunction, Zakhalesh' argument is entirely on the basis of WP:NOTUSEFUL. If these were the only considerations, I would vote Keep. Anarchangel (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#PerNominator  Unscintillating (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per precedent established at the AfDs mentioned in the nomination, these kinds of lists are unencyclopedic cross-categorizations. Reyk YO! 09:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current list is the result of a group decision to use a robot to convert a category to a list.
Related discussions:
Unscintillating (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigDom 08:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Malek-Yonan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable source provided. Farhikht (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Unless the article is a total hoax notability is asserted and documented by a reliable source. It would be nice if other sources could be provided. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a hoax since he is claimed to the one of the founders of Uncle Ben's Rice and is not mentioned in its article. However that article is poor too. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard Encyclopedia does not write articles that are hoaxes. He's not the founder of Uncle Ben's Rice but the man who developed the process that Uncle Ben and other companies use. Zayya 04:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You are correct. However Uncle Ben's Rice gives another story about the development of its process. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it appears to be verifiable and meets the standards of notability. It does need more sources and needs to be copy edited for neutrality and proper tone. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How it appears to be verifiable without providing a source?Farhikht (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declining to delete Milton Malek-Yonan -I am declining the nomination of Milton Malek-Yonan for deletion, because of the following concern: The articles make credible assertion of importance and/or significance. Thank you. Zayya 00:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, Milton Malek-Yonan's listing in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (page 160) also supports his importance and the significance of his discovery and work. Zayya 01:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe this article meets the standards of notability. I am in the process of gathering the original newspaper clippings and relating materials to this article. Zayya 07:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traian Filotti[edit]

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

We don't generally consider colonels notable, unless their prominence is immediately obvious (Georgios Papadopoulos, Muammar Gaddafi, Henry L. Stimson). That is not the case for Filotti. That he encouraged the Crown Prince to modernize the army is admirable, and that this is (perhaps) recorded by a couple of memoirs and a text written by a family member is interesting, but there simply isn't enough for a standalone article. At most, he deserves a passing mention in an expanded version of Romanian Land Forces, but even that is doubtful. - Biruitorul Talk 17:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 15:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sava Dumitrescu[edit]

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

Neither of the sources provided indicates notability: the first is a dead link leading to some sort of forum, and the second is this article, which does no more than list Dumitrescu's name as part of a series of names, but says nothing more about him. Google Scholar is not encouraging either. I don't know whether being rector at Grigore T. Popa would qualify him for inclusion under WP:PROF, but the salient point at this time is that the claim is unverified. If we have sources verifying the claim, we can examine it, but until then, we should delete, as notability is unproven. - Biruitorul Talk 17:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per WP:PROF. This link appears to confirm the post of professor. This link appears to confirm the two books. Better verification and indication of notability for both assertions would be desirable, but I guess the fact that this is Romania means it's probably the best we'll get. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither attending a conference nor writing a book (or even two books) is substantive evidence for notability. Also, "this is Romania" doesn't cut it as an argument: the notability of present-day Romanian physicians who actually are notable is readily discernible from an abundance of reliable sources. See Ionel Sinescu, for example. Furthermore, even if there were a lack of online sources for Romania, WP:GNG applies universally, regardless of a subject's country of origin. - Biruitorul Talk 19:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was looking for evidence of the role as professor; the conference itself was immaterial. I provided some more references below, but I am beginning to have some concern about verifying this role of rector. He was certainly not the rector in 2008/9 - that was one Prof. dr. Vasile Astărăstoae - but the article does say he was, not is, the rector. It is really for the article creator to substantiate this, and it would be helpful if they would do so now. However, the additional references which show him to be president of what appears to be a board reporting to the government looks like it satisfies criteria #7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". So I am still of the opinion that this article (unlike all the others in this family history series I have looked at) is justifiably here. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:PROF. I added the above refs as well as three others. Nihola (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep if that nefarious source known as Wikipedia has any merit here: Rector: Rector is the head of most universities and other higher educational institutions in at least parts of Central and Eastern Europe, such as Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine.... This is a weak stub that needs additional sourcing, but notable per se in terms of the subject of the article. Carrite (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't seem to have read my full deletion nomination, so I'll try again. Even if the rector position indicates notability (and as Dahn explains below, that isn't necessarily the case), the salient point at this time is that the claim is unverified. If we have sources verifying the claim, we can examine it, but until then, we should delete, as notability is unproven. Understood? If you make an argument for notability, you first need sources demonstrating the factual basis of your claim. - Biruitorul Talk 19:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still don't see a citation for him being rector of anything, and am personally not convinced that his achievements, rector included, are enough under WP:PROF. Where is the "significant impact in his scholarly discipline"? Where is the "highly prestigious honor", or "the highly selective and prestigious" society of which he is a member? And so on. No, Mr. Dumitrescu, judging from the article and the added sources, is on par with many other senior academics in Romania who hold rector positions but may not be sufficiently significant in their field(s). The burden of proving otherwise falls on the contributor. As we stand, this is just part of the Filotti family cruft. Dahn (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If the rectorship can be sourced, it would be enough to pass WP:PROF#C6. And only one criteron is enough: one doesn't need academic impact AND awards AND society memberships etc. But I agree that sourcing is currently lacking. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: these may be useful. This link is to the university which shows him as a professor; this link describes the Romanian National Ethics Committee as "established as an independent body in coordination of the Minister of Health, consisting of health professionals and non-medical members", and Dumitrescu as its president; this is another article about that role. I'll look for more later. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David, I haven't said that one needs to pass both, but he seems to me not to pass either. PROF 6 doesn't validate this case, either: indeed, we're talking about an upper school, but forgive me for not finding that a particularly important one even in its Romanian context. And, as you yourself note, it remains as yet unverified that he was ever rector. Richard, I also don't think that him being on the Ethics Committee is necessarily important enough to validate a bio, with or without the rectorship, unless we assume that we should have articles on all the other members, and perhaps the Committee itself. Dahn (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as she held the highest position at one of the more prestigious universities in Romania, therefore passes wp:PROF. Nergaal (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can forgive your forgetting that Sava is a male name. What I find unpardonable is your apparent failure to read this discussion at even a cursory level. Whether or not a rectorship at Grigore T Popa indicates notability, the fact remains unverified by reliable sources — indeed, by any source whatsoever. So for our purposes, he was never rector, and you need to base your claim for notability on verifiable propositions. I'm surprised I have to mention this to an author of 15 Featured Articles, and much other worthy content besides.
    • And I would suggest that the closing administrator disregard the "he's notable because he was a rector" votes (as opposed to more thoughtful ones like RichardOSmith's). As far as we know, he was not, so using that as a premise for keeping the article is invalid. - Biruitorul Talk 15:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, this and this (which are, if not reliable ones, at least "honourable" sources) suggest he was indeed the rector (the first says that around 1993 he was already a former rector).Anonimu (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, a parliamentary speech wouldn't be much use in an article, while a reprint from Jurnalul de est (whatever that is) is also a bit of a stretch. But taking your point that the sources are at least credible, what is glaring here is how much effort is needed to come up with anything about the man, and how paltry the results are even then. If we were to write about the incumbent rector of the University of Bucharest, for instance, we'd have no shortage of high-quality sources from which to choose. By contrast, what we have on Dumitrescu is the equivalent of diving to the bottom of the sea expecting riches, only to dredge up a few rusted copper coins. Real notability is usually apparent, and doesn't require bending all sorts of policies in order to demonstrate. - Biruitorul Talk 20:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To complete Biruitorul's analogy, and to establish that the Bucharest rector is not a case of overexposure (systemic bias?), I did the same with hits on Ion Cucui, the current Valahia University of Târgovişte rector, which is arguably much less covered than the University of Bucharest. Other than the many google hits, I got some 44 gbooks results and some 5 pages of gscholar results. Comparably, all gbooks results for "Sava Dumitrescu" are to another man of that name, a certain anti-communist commissar of the interwar period, and there are only 3 gscholar hits. Dahn (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) I guess we'll have to wait for him to die before we can establish notability using reliable on-line sources. Finding reliable on-line sources about Romanian (and most second and third world) scientists (as in natural science) is quite hard, especially the ones who were active before Internet became mainstream in these regions of the world (for Romania that means late 90s/early 2000s). The ones who evade this systemic bias do so mostly for political (in the broad sense) reasons, either because they held controversial views or they had come into conflict with some statal authorities. Thus, in my opinion, if there's a credible suggestion towards the notability of a non-first world scientist, such as rectorship in a rather major university (which anyway makes him notable according to the standard wikipedia guidelines), that scientist should have an article on Wikipedia.Anonimu (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • We'll have to disagree there. Expanding coverage of notable Romanian topics is a worthy goal. Seeking to cover more than we would normally cover for countries on the "right" side of the systemic bias divide, simply because they fall on the "wrong" side, is counterproductive. Notable scientists from Romania or, for that matter, from Rwanda, can stand on their own merit, without us needing to resort to grading their significance on a different curve. (Moreover, as 1960s-80s Romania simply had less publishing activity going on than in the contemporaneous West, and as Rwanda has always had less than both, it stands to reason that Western subjects will always be more thoroughly covered, no matter how much material from "neglected" countries is digitized or otherwise made accessible.) As for the "sources are more abundant offline" argument: maybe so, but this would be an If a tree falls in a forest situation — WP:BURDEN requires actual presentation of sources, not appeals to their possible existence. - Biruitorul Talk 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I was expressing my opinion on wether he passes wp:prof. Anyways, this forum [9] strongly suggests that he was indeed a rector. Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this reliable enough: http://www.bzi.ro/rafuiala-dinozaurilor-61015? Nergaal (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Source in bzi.ro (romanian newspaper Bună Ziua Iași) confirms he was former rector (head) of the university.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer camps in Arkansas

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADHDtv[edit]

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

Non-notable television show created as part of one editor's self-promotion (see: Lewismash (talk · contribs) & Lewis Marklin Mash). The cited references don't help to establish notability as they're self-referential or apparently broken; Variety Magazine is cited but only the homepage is linked and ADHDtv fails to turn up anything internally. I haven't been able to locate proper external sourcing to indicate notability. This press release claims that "The show competed for a regional Emmy, but was edged out by more traditional, mainstream shows" but the only details I can find about this are from user-created IMDB content claiming two 2008 nomination in the "Southwest" region...this may refer to the region known as Pacific Southwest but, the actual list of nominations doesn't include anything relating to this show. tvguide.com hosts a few videos but they have no discussion of the content. I just don't think this passes WP:NOTE. — Scientizzle 15:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This show never aired on national TV in any form, and it looks likely if it aired at all on regional TV, the reason it was never nominated for an Emmy was because according to the show's Facebook page, it's a cable access show. Emmys are never given out to public access shows because they aren't under their purview. Thus, it's a non-notable cable access show with an equally non-notable web viewership. Nate • (chatter) 19:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 21:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect sir. The show started on Public access tv, was syndicated to 50 US cities and now ranks higher than half of the network shows on iMDB. The show is the first cable access show to compete for an Emmy. It is world famous. Just because you have not watched the show, does not mean that it is not note worthy to those who want the facts about the show and its creator. This is a pertinent piece of American Television history, when a public domain TV series competed with network produced shows. This is not self promotion. There is nothing on this page that promotes any person or product. This is history and facts, that a member of the general public should have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.56.147 (talk • contribs) 00:19, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

If it's world famous, please cite reliable sources that substantively discuss the show. Please also clarify the Emmy award nomination...it's not at all clear. — Scientizzle 02:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The show aired nationally for 2 years, there are fans around the world who watch it on tv and now via the internet, however, finding articles is not that easy. There have been some articles, but most of them are either gone or hard to find because the show was not created by a major network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewismash (talk • contribs)

Comment Most of the results I'm seeing are for very unrelated projects which deal with the actual condition ADHD and how parents and children can learn to live with it, not this show. Also, I find it very dubious the show was nominated for an Emmy (as noted above, Emmys generally only deal with traditional full-power broadcasting and major regional cable networks, not public access television), and not just because it's nothing but interviews from press junkets which aren't very extraordinary at all. A Los Angeles production must go through the local Emmy show, not the Pacific Southwest show, which is that way because you don't want the LA people winning everything at the cost of San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. Also, if it airs in fifty markets across the nation, I'd like examples please. I live in an area where I can receive the stations of three top 50 markets, and I have never seen this show at all, including Chicago, Milwaukee and Grand Rapids. Please give us station calls and timeslots.
Finally, interviews of the sort that are seen on this show are not "public domain"; they require the permission of the studio whose subject is being interviewed to be aired, so that claim is also dubious. And also, all of your contributions under your named and IP accounts have been solely dealing with subjects involving this program, thus there is self-promotion. Nate • (chatter) 06:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the LA area 2008 Emmy nominations and I still find nothing to verify the Emmy claim. — Scientizzle 13:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive content from Lewismash removed. Relevant points have been retained in this section — Scientizzle 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • The show was based in Santa Barbara, which is part of the Pacific Southwest Chapter of the Emmy's. The show aired in 50 markets, on Public Access and cable cast. Those channel calls are in TV guide for a limited time. The Emmy's are not limited to Network shows. The show was eligible in all 50 markets where there are regional Emmy's, but the show specifically chose to compete in it's hometown market. The show, incidentally had more viewers than all the other regional competing shows, but because of Emmy politics, this show was not going to win, and it was not expected to.
  • The other ADHDtv you [Nate] found, about the medical term, is a newer show, and since ADHDtv: With Lew Marklin has not aired in almost 2 years, you must type in the full name in the search engine to tell the Google bots and web crawlers to search for older material, which there is no shortage of web material on the show.
  • Furthermore, the interviews are public domain, because the celebrities are public domain figures and the show was non-commercial in nature and no direct copyrights were exercised, which means, in layman terms, that any Joe off the street, could access and use them. Once the studio releases the celebrity to be interviewed, they no longer lay claim to the footage.
Putting aside the above personal attacks and threats of violence--for which I just blocked Lewismash (talk · contribs)--Here is a google serach for "ADHDtv: With Lew Marklin", from which I've found nothing new to meet WP:V and WP:NOTE.
Additionally, with the confirmation that it's the Pacific Southwest Chapter of the Emmy's that we should be looking at, here are the nomination lists for 2007, 2008, & 2009. I cannot find this show or person on any of these lists. Please let me know if you do. — Scientizzle 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And according to the show's IMDB FAQ the program was nominated for "variety show" and "variety show host", categories which do not exist at all for the PSC Emmys show, nor the LA show. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Scientizzle. V and N both seem in question. The autobio should be nominated also, no? –SJ+ 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had planned on seeing the outcome or likely outcome of this discussion before pushing forward on the autobio. The bio claims several possible lines of notability, but this show appears to be the major component. — Scientizzle 16:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per the above; no evidence of notability. I agree that the bio should be AfD'd as well (for the same reasons) EyeSerenetalk 12:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply listing a television show on wikipedia that existed and aired throughout the country. [personal attack redacted] — Scientizzle 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Anyone can criticize an article, pick it apart, or make fun of someone's attempt to record information in a new forum, but a true gentlemen and scholar attempts to remedy a problem rather than just tear it down, as this guy did in his rude wording. The show includes some very notable people. All of the actors have been on various television shows and movies. Alexa Demara is a recognized model, Melissa Evans was one of the 8 fired news press writers who were fired in 2007, which made national headlines, prompted 2 years of debates across college campuses, and prompted the documentary film "Citizen McCaw, as was John Zant (one of the 8 reporters). It is ludicrous to say that I am somehow self promoting a project that is no longer on the air, however, it is quite relevant to actual people, who look up this information, for reports, articles and reference to television, private syndication and public access history to either report on the careers of the people who started their acting careers on the show, or to report on the show in reference to other shows with similar goals, as a precedent reference. This wikipedia article accomplishes the "dubious" task of putting all of the info in one place, to make it easier for those people to get whatever info there is, in one place, rather than have to sort through about 100 or so links on google, yahoo, or wherever else. It is up to you guys if you want to help me list what is listable, or just delete the profile. It is out of my hands. What I will tell you, is that the group attended the Pacific Southwest Emmy's in 2008, by invite and competed for 2 Emmy's. The contact person for the chapter is Liz Korda. Throughout the country, there are chapters with more public broadcast categories and some Emmy chapters are even recognizing web broadcast pieces, but the Pacific Southwest Chapter is a very competitive chapter, that does not usually have too much outside of broadcast news, so this show was a very rare entry. The entire cast attended the award gala. I do not know where to find info that supports. So, if that is an issue, then remove that portion, but everything else on this page is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.1.14 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Marklin Mash. — Scientizzle 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. So far, I have been unable to locate many sources to verify this article. I did find, however, television listings from Newspaper Archive which independently verify that this program aired in Santa Barbara, California, in 2008. I have been unable to verify any other cities at this time. Lewis, does the production company maintain any on-line information about where else the show was seen, or on what stations or cable programs the series was syndicated? Even a site which is now offline would be useful. Even a regionally-aired program could be considered notable, if some sources can be found. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not even one Google news/news archive hit for Lew Marklin suggests the claims of the article cannot be true. Even Duke Fightmaster doesn't have an article! (highly recommended "This American Life" piece on the saga of a homegrown talk show host)--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This can be closed as a delete, no need to leave open in the carry over lists!--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is one of those rare cases where the deletion process itself has become flawed enough that it is better, in the end, to close it before the full seven days have passed. At this point, this AfD has become little other than a battleground on which a dispute from the French Wikipedia is playing itself out again, to wit: the vast majority of comments come from anonymous or very new users and bring no argument beyond a "does not"/"does too" restatement of positions.

As far as the article itself is concerned, there is no doubt that an article about this person cannot be supported under our inclusion criteria. There is no significant coverage of this politician by independent sources to write a biography, and the very existence of the article (and the polemic around it) used as a promotional vehicle. Given that there isn't even verifiable biographical information to write a stub, the only reasonable course at this time is deletion, with no prejudice towards a properly sourced recreation should Asselineau get significant independent coverage from reliable sources in the future. — Coren (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

François Asselineau[edit]

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

Nominating per this ANI thread. Apparently, the article was deleted at frwiki for lack of notability (though their notability standards are different from ours). Although the subject is mentioned in several reliable French newspapers, several French(?) editors have mentioned that the newspaper articles barely refer to the subject at all and that the article is mostly promotional. Referring to AFD for the community to examine. NW (Talk) 15:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Correctly deleted from the French Wikipedia by their criteria for a politician (no electoral mandate), but we have no such rule. This arguably does belong on en.wiki because of the coverage in reliable French newspapers (which is demonstrable from the links already in the article). This character is a minor, but colourful and controversial, political figure on the right wing in France. (By French standards he's fairly extreme right wing, although I suspect his views would be mainstream at a British UKIP conference or a US Tea Party). Some of the sources barely refer to the subject at all and may be removed. The article is mostly promotional. But I think this is fixable by normal editing. I'll go with weak keep, and I personally pledge to help with the fixing if it's kept.—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the general notability guideline. This is a seminotable politician who has had decent coverage in the French newspapers, thus also meeting WP:POLITICIAN #3. However, I would support removing the unreferenced content about his personal life. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Dear NW, thank you for your notification. I found 2 points in the claim:
    • The article is mostly promotional
      I referred to this Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion where 5 points of promotion are developed: 1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment Since it is a biography, it will be difficult to make propaganda on it. 2. Opinion pieces All information come from the sources. They are just facts of his career. 3. Scandal mongering The biography does not mention any scandal. 4. Self-promotion I am not François Asselineau. 5. Advertising All sources are independent and from third-parties such as Les_Échos_(France), Libération, Le Monde, Le Parisien and Le Figaro.
    • the newspaper articles barely refer to the subject at all
      Without even reading French, you can see that the name "François Asselineau" is in the title of these articles: source 1, source 2, Source 3, Source 4...
    • S Marshall mentioned also that françois Asselineau had no electoral mandate which is untrue since he had been elected member of the council of Paris source. I wish these explanations will help you. Cordially, --Lawren00 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep More than a million cumulate viewers on DailyMotion (French) and YouTube (Worldwide) .. Saying he has no notoriety is like saying that Agusta A.101 has a great notoriety and anyone in France knows about it .. This is a silly discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.231.15.101 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This would be politician has no notoriety whatsoever in France. The article is skillfully misleading in the way it uses references. Their number suggests that F. Asselineau has some kind of notoriety. This is not all the case. In every reference his name is just mentioned in passing, as he is a civil servant who has worked for famous politicians on whom the articles are about. But he has no personal notoriety. Recently he has tried to launch a personal political career, but it's been a failure. It's not been mentioned in the news media. His "political party" is just him and a few friends. No one has ever heard of it in France. Wikipedia is just a way this person has found to revive his failed political career. Gede (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Idem Gede. Asselineau has absolutely no notoriety in France and its admissibility on WP:fr has been clearly denied. Regarding the cited sources, it doesn't directly refers to the person but are solely sometimes a vague mention to him. We faced on WP:fr a strong PoV pushing (now pages are protected to creation) to promote this person and its so-called political party which has absolutely no notoriety but wants to acquire one.--LPLT (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shame! this gentleman is like Nigel Farage (NB : F. Asselineau is better) Be careful what you do, EVERYBODY IS WATCHING YOU. you discredit wikipedia !
  • Keep Although François Asselineau's notoriety is quite low compared to some other politicians, it is far bigger than some persons' biographies you can find on wikipedia. His conferences also generated from 750 000 to 1 million views on dailymotion and youtube which makes him pretty popular on the french internet scene.
    Another point is that he has in fact been elected counselor of Paris. Also, what makes you think it is necesseraly him or his friends that created this notice?
    Btw saying he is deinfitly extreme right is a total nonsense to everybody who knows the french political scene a little and has common sense. There is no xenophobia, racism, anti-semitism in his speeches so why saying he is extreme right wing?
    Basically all the points raised to delete are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by La botte secrète (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not want to interfere in the decision process of this project, but seeing broad declarations about "articles not being relevant", I thought you might be interested in getting some detail about the content of the references of the article (as you may not be fluent in french) so that you can decide by yourselves.
A remarkable fact is that most of the references are not "press articles". They are mere mentions of appointments. Les Echos are an economical journal who regularly posts entries related to the appointment of civil servants or executives.
These entries are put in what they call "Le carnet". You can find the Carnet here. You will find therein brief announcements relating to deaths or appointments of civil servants or in corporates. Arguably, not all people mentionned therein are notable for WP.
Anyway, herebelow in the collapsed box, the detail of all the references.
So all in all, a civil servant with an average career, who at some point appears to have tried to start a political carreer. With the support of some one of his political sponsors (Pasqua), was elected at a local election in 2001. Since then, lost his support, jumped from party to party (from the biggest going down to the smallest, see RIF), did not even represent himself at the next elections and founded his own party. This party, founded in 2007, is completely unknown. I could not found one single article talking about it, except for the short reference hereabove, in 2008. Oddly enough, there is an article about a "Union populaire républicaine" party in Wikipedia in french and here, but...it is about a party who disappeared in 1946.
Hope this helps. 217.136.98.58 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See here and here. I don't see why a former inspector general of finance wouldn't be notable. There's plenty of sources about him out there. SilverserenC 04:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading indicates that at best, that is analagous to an undersecretary in the federal government of the United States. I imagine that isn't terribly notable... NW (Talk) 05:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, it sounded more important than that. :P Well, regardless, there are more than enough sources about him out there. It makes me wonder if there is some political reason for its deletion over on French Wikipedia, but I wouldn't know. Maybe they are just that much more strict about Notability over there. SilverserenC 05:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The french WP is indeed definitely particularly strict especially for french people perceived as creating their own entry in WP, and probably even more for unknown politicians trying to boost their carreer (which is, I understand, the reason for the deletion over there, but I did not really looked into it and did not participate in that deletion). Being strict has probably a lot to do with the fact that an entry on WP:fr for a french person may have an impact on his actual notability IRL (in any case, it is the reason why they create it). WP:en may have different criteria and may be less concerned by the impact a page may have, if any, in France, this is the reason why I just gave hereabove some factual information about the sources of the article, without giving my opinion on what WP:en should do with the article (but be patient with guys from WP:fr giving their opnion here, they fear -and it has already started- that an article staying here will serve to create pages on other wikis and will end up promoting the re-creation of the WP:fr article). Anyway, I just stopped by to give another information: an inspector general of finance is probably not even the equivalent of an undersecretary. An inspector general of finance is merely, as I understand it, one of the 260 members, all civil servants, of the General Inspection of Finances, an auditing body of the French administration. Hope this helps. 217.136.98.58 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's not as if he was only a general inspector of finance. He's been "chef de cabinet" chief of staff of numerous ministers (Panafieu, Longuet for instance). Arguing is unotability over that simple argument isn't serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.158.245 (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if being a head of staff of a minister gives somebody sufficient notability. As a reminder, because I do not know what the equivalent can be elsewhere, a cabinet staff member in France has no position at all. He is personnally chosen by the relevant minister usually amongst civil servants, but he has no personal responsibility at all. He will leave when his minister leaves, or even earlier than that as he can be kicked out at any moment, whereupon he just returns to the public body where he was serving before. There are staff members who become notable because of the carreer they do after their cabinet's staff position, but the vast majority just return in their former position as civil servants, maybe with a little promotion if they get lucky. 217.136.77.95 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This deletion is intended for political reasons by french extremist politics. 57000 results on google.fr and about 70000 on google.com for "François Asselineau". French page of François Asselineau has already been censored for a long time with no serious reasons by wikipedias watchdogs (see LPLT). Yes you're facing strong PoV, what proves Gede is actually just telling lies about the so called political failure of M. Asselineau. The UPR is a growing movement in France (due to Internet acces to information) but all the major medias are trying to keep it under water. If WP is now doing the same exact job as mainstream broadcasted medias, what's it's purpose ? I thought we were on free information platform, not on manipulated garbage. Thanks not to spend so much energy on trying to delete M. Asselineau's pages and please give us free access on restoring WP:fr "François Asselineau" page. Best regards, 62.147.205.164 (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [I don't know what the problem with this article about F.Asselineau, It's perfectly acceptable and u have absolutely nothing to oppose. Plus rien ne ralentira sa progression à l'exception du temps. Désolé for my poor English. By the way, I'm French so where is the Asselineau's French Page ?!] 83.198.38.58 (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Metra Inc. comment added by Metra Inc. (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep INFO : User/Deletionists Gede & LPLT are French. Attention ! here it's wikipedia not la fête des BBR...

//// Usr "UDUFRUDUHU" This user is also French... CQFD ////

  • COMMENT [So it's nothing but a political ploy ! Probably FN] 83.198.38.58 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Metra Inc.duplicate vote struck out by me... Carrite (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC) ...Now it's a comment 83.198.47.26 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Jean Josianne[reply]
  • Strong Keep This deletion is intended for political reasons by french extremist politics. 57000 results on google.fr and about 70000 on google.com for "François Asselineau" show his polpularity. French page of François Asselineau has already been censored for a long time with no serious reasons by wikipedias watchdogs (see LPLT). Yes you're facing strong PoV, what proves Gede is actually just telling lies about the so called political failure of M. Asselineau. The UPR is a growing movement in France (due to Internet acces to information) but all the major medias are trying to keep it under water. If WP is now doing the same exact job as mainstream broadcasted medias, what's it's purpose ? I thought we were on free information platform, not on manipulated garbage. Thanks not to spend so much energy on trying to delete M. Asselineau's pages and please give us free access on restoring WP:fr "François Asselineau" page. Best regards, Sperate (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since, up to now, it has not been demonstrated that :
    • François Asselineau occupied any function in the French political system that would give him a sufficient notability. Inspector general of finance is nothing but a common function the French administration. There is not any notability that goes with this function.
    • None of the sources are focused on François Asselineau himself but mention him as linked to the main subject of the article. See the detailed analysis of the references in the hidden box above. Udufruduhu (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I mention to the attention of the sysop that will conclude this talk page that both Sperate and La botte secrète are accounts created just to give positive opinion in this page, see [28], [29]. I wouldn't be surprised that some other contributors appear here in the same way. Udufruduhu (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amusingly, the deletion of the page on French Wikipedia led to the creation of this. As for other sources, see this, this and this. SilverserenC 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Silverseren: you mention 3 sources. Amusingly, as you say, the 1st one is about Mr Asselineau complaining about the fact that this WP entry was deleted. I do not know this website, "Enquête & Débat", and knowing who they are is interesting, as they seem to be the only information media actually interested in Mr Asselineau. Enquête & Débat seems to be structured as a collective newsblog (see this), and the articles about Mr Asselineau are signed by "Jean", which leaves me uncertain whether we can use them as a source. But I reckon it is the 1st time we have something that looks like a real source actually saying something about the guy :-)
    Your other sources are a small article that is already in the sources of the article, and 2 economic intelligence related websites who mention the fact that Mr Asselineau was, in 2004, appointed as head of a directorate in charge of economic intelligence. It is not surprising that specialised website echoed the creation of the directorate and mentionned who was going to head it. As a reminder, the directorate was so important that it was dissolved 2 years later. Hope this helps. 217.136.77.95 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to notability for political parties and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. As there is no page for the political party established by this subject (Popular Republican Union), I am amenable to assuming per se notability on that basis alone. With 47,000 google hits on the name, it is clear that we are dealing with a significant public figure here. I don't speak French, but I will lay 5 American dollars that there are third party sources out there about this individual. The fact that a page on the subject got whacked on the French Wikipedia doesn't relate to the English article before us here. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm french, and I consider the second "this" on the comment above your reply to be a reliable source; this is why I disagree with the french admins on this one. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>>>>> ATTENTION ! SOME VOTE WERE ERASED ! <<<<<<<<<<

    • BACKUP :
  • SPEEDY KEEP INVALID REASON / MALICIOUS ATTEMPT
  • Keep Il s'agirait de redescendre sur terre, M. François Asselineau est président de l'union populaire républicaine, l'U.P.R. compte plusieurs centaines d'adhérents à jour de cotisations ainsi que plus d'un millier de sympathisants, notamment sur Facebook. Outre son brillant parcours, M. François Asselineau est reconnu en France et à l'étranger pour la justesse de ses analyses. Si l'on fait une synthèse de l'ensemble des informations déjà longuement détaillées ici, force est d'admettre que M. François Asselineau est bien plus présidentiable que ne pourrait l'être Madame Cindy Lee (Présidente du sulfureux parti du plaisir et strip-teaseuse à ses heures perdues).
    Si Madame Cindy Lee dispose de sa page Wiki, je ne vois pas quelle raison sérieuse pourrait s'opposer à la publication de la page de M. François Asselineau. (à l'exception, bien entendu, d'un acte de malveillance). C'est une question de bon sens. En conséquence je demande à la fondation Wikipedia de bien vouloir réactiver toutes les pages ayant trait à M. François Asselineau. CDT 83.198.41.24 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Cirrus&Pigs[reply]
      • Translated ComCi/ComCa Version : Mr François Asselineau is president of the Union Populaire Républicaine, UPR has several hundred members ... updated contributions as well as more than a thousand supporters, including Facebook. Besides his brilliant career, Mr. François Asselineau is recognized in France and abroad for the accuracy of his analysis. If we make a synthesis of all the information already detailed at length here, we must admit that Mr. Asselineau Francis is much more presidential than could be Ms. Cindy Lee (President of Parti du plaisir and "bimbo girl" in his spare time).* SEE THIS: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_du_plaisir.If Ms. Cindy Lee has his Wiki page, I don't see any serious reason could oppose to the publication of Asselineau's wiki page.(except, of course, a malicious act). It is a matter of common sense. Therefore I ask the Wikipedia Foundation kindly reactivate all pages relating to F. Asselineau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.198.47.26 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO... Hey, Dude, I see nothing ! it's certainly a PoV. You know, a persistence of vision. ("Persistance rétinienne" in French)

- Mouahahaha Yeah bro, he confused "PoV" and "PoV Pushing". This guy is hallucinating ! God save the Asselineau's Page 83.198.47.26 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC) MIRAGE[reply]

- I'm agree with you it's simply a persistence of vision... Yeah a big PoV!, Maybe he put his head in his ass and he sees nothing. So it's probably an advanced stage of palinopsia of asshole disease. ("Palinopsie du trou du cul" in French)

  • (weak) delete + comment Though most of the comments above are probably coming from the same person, others coming from :fr Wikipedia sysops undestandably fed up by a similar circus on this other wiki, a few ones are structured and come from good faith long-time editors from this wiki. (Some cleaning on this page might be useful, but I don't know pretty well what can commonly be done here). I think I should take time to answer a few of these comments :
    • for User:S Marshall, Mr Asselineau is "a minor, but colourful and controversial, political figure on the right wing in France." I am sorry to disagree, at least on the word controversial : as the sources show, nobody outside Mr Asselineau himself do care about him - he is not famous enough to receive unpleasant comments from political adversaries, he is simply unknown ;
    • many thanks to 217.136.98.58 for his careful and balanced analysis of the sources given in the article. Very few are newspaper full articles (more often they are only short news agencies reports), and they don't contain more than one sentence about Mr Asselineau ;
    • I am sorry to disagree with the conclusion of Carrite. I understand very well his position ("I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to notability for political parties"), but Mr Asselineau's party is for my taste under this lowest of all possible barriers : we have until now only found one source, a short news agency report of the Agence France-Presse ([30]) with a slight hint of this party (Mr Asselineau is cited as "président de l'Union populaire républicaine") in this report, which relies on a communiqué by Mr Asselineau, and which probably simply reproduced the mentions given in this communiqué. Note that the "Union populaire républicaine" must not be confused with the "Union républicaine populaire", another very small right-wing party, under leadership of Christian Jeanjean, mayor of Palavas-les-Flots. I personally think this URP is probably notable enough for inclusion, at least if one is inclusionist, but Mr Asselineau's party has no notoriety at all.

After these answers, a few personal comments :

    • An "inspecteur général des Finances" is not similar to an undersecretary in the US meaning, see General Inspection of Finances (France) to have a (sadly unsourced) flavour of what it is. The "inspecteurs généraux des Finances" are civil servants who, in their twenties, graduated with a high rank from the prestigious École Nationale d'Administration. While in France brilliant studies are a key to success, they are not completely sufficient : while _some_ of these "inspecteurs généraux" go for world-class recognition (Jean-Claude Trichet) and others for very high situations in French administration, others stay in obscure auditing missions and there would be nothing to say about them in a Wikipedia article ;
    • The most interesting point in Mr Asselineau's carreer (and the explanation of the "weak" before my deletion opinion) is its short spell as a member on the Conseil de Paris, which is the deliberative assembly (163 members) for this town. It would not be unreasonable to think _every_ member ever of this assembly can have an article on Wikipedia (and it would of course include Mr Asselineau) ; this is not my position though, since only a few dozens of these members are reasonably active and well-known, those who are in the executive team of the Mayor and a handful of leaders or the opposition. It might seem reasonable to include every maverick member of this council, and I am myself hesitant to sustain this position : as the council of Paris is reasonably followed by the media, an atypical member leaving the group in which he was elected might be considered as interesting - it might be noteworthy that a colleague of Mr Asselineau among the five "non inscrits" of the 2001-2008 term, Alexandre Galdin got his five minutes of celebrity this week. However, I don't think this should be automatic ; I do approve of the inclusion of some of the mavericks, even perhaps most of them, but only those who manage to get a reasonably significant coverage by the media. Which is not the case of Mr Asselineau. French Tourist (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry to contradict you, but I'm afraid this AfD is itself evidence that M. Asselineau is controversial. The matter is exactly as I said, save that he does seem to have an "electoral mandate" for a minor post in one small part of France—which is not relevant to en.wiki's notability criteria because nobody believes he passes WP:POLITICIAN. The position is that he meets our general notability guideline because he has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Certainly, if the sources were in English, this debate would have been snow closed by now.—S Marshall T/C 13:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this AfD only proves that M. Asselineau is controversial in the very limited circle of :fr-wikipedia sysops, that he has a (local) importance on the fr-wikipedia sysop's bulletin - not that he has got "coverage in multiple reliable sources". As concerns the mandate, as far as I understand he has none now, but had a non neglible one before 2008 (member of the Council of Paris). French Tourist (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page please because this statesman is the future of France, it's abuse to see him at the extreme right wing and this is not a serious argument. How many extremist man have a page on wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.163.184.79 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the one who originated the article of François Asselineau. I would like to answer to the main points of French Wiki admins, such as Udufruduhu, who came here to expose their point of view. It was said that references are just mentioning briefly François Asselineau. But it is untrue and I wrote it in my first message. There are at least 4 references that use François Asselineau in the title of their articles. Therefore it would be awkward that those references are just "mentioning briefly about him". source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4... Moreover, the article is using 19 references from most recognized French Newspaper such as Les_Échos_(France), Libération, Le Monde, Le Parisien and Le Figaro. I could have use more since I found almost 30 references from those newspapers but it was just meaningless. Finally, even if the references were giving only few information about François Asselineau which was proven untrue above, it allowed to build a decent article in term of information and length. In conclusion, I would like to say sorry to English wikipedians that are "victims" of an undesired French war on this page. On the one hand, you see all these "spam" comments, expressing the passion of people who appreciate François Asselineau and can not understand that almost any politician can have his page on Wikipedia but not François Asselineau. On the other hand, there are those that spend days fighting against vandals that have nothing to do but to destroy Wikipedia. I can understand them becoming extra-sensitive with those people by over-moderating any of their movement in the way that it even brings them to the English Wikipedia for justice. I understand all of this but I do not justify any of them. Maybe we should just keep it simple. Wikipedia has rules and recommendations. And this article seems perfectly valid in this frame. The consensus of third party that are represented by English wikipedians seems to confirm it. --Lawren00 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article may well be kept, and maybe it is OK for it to be kept under the criteria that are used here, but we both know that in fact it will be kept for the wrong reasons: because some very clever and active people created a fog with sources that are accepted at face value as relevant while they are not.
Let's have a look at what you pretend.
As already explained, the Les Echos sources (what you call the articles that have Asselineau as a title ^_^) are mere carnet entries. You can find the Carnet of Les Echos here. You will find therein brief announcements relating to deaths or appointments of civil servants or in corporates. Arguably, not all people mentionned therein are notable for WP.
You say there are other articles in other newspapers and you mention
  • Libération: there are 2 entries in that one. The first one is not an article, just the raw post election results of a ballot where Asselineau got elected as member of the council of Paris. The second one refers to the creation of a directorate in a Ministry and mentions Mr Asselineau as being head of the directorate (it is interesting to know 2 facts about this directorate that was supposed to be active on economic intellligence: the directorate was supposed to be a 15 people team and apart from this small article, no one ever heard anything about this directorate. Which is not surprising, as it was dissolved in May 2006).
  • Le Monde: one entry. Not an article, again a mere Carnet type entry about the fact that Asselineau will be chief of staff of a the president (Pasqua) of a general council.
  • Le Parisien: as Mr Asselineau was member of the council of Paris, his sole elected position ever, the surprise is that Le Parisien mentions him only 2 times, both related to the renewal of the council. The first one is about the upcoming elections and refers to a group of non registered members who grouped themselves under a "Free Paris" banner to be candidates vs majority candidates. Mr A is listed as a member of the Free Paris group and it is noted that he will run against his former boss. The second one mention the fact that Asselineau gives up being a candidate.
  • Le Figaro: one short article referring to Asselineau giving up for the Paris' council election.
So to cut a long story short:
  • a couple of Carnet entries about the various positions this civil servant took in various cabinets (as a reminder, a cabinet staff member has no position at all. He is personnally chosen by the relevant minister usually amongst civil servants, has no responsibility at all, leaves when his minister leaves, and he can be kicked out at any moment, whereupon he just returns to his civil servant position, sometimes with a promotion)
  • one short article and one carnet entry mentionning Mr Asselineau becoming head of a 15 people directorate that was dissolved 2 years later
  • a couple of short article about his political carreer in Paris: one, a list published in 2001, to mention his election. The 2 others in 2007, when the council was to be renewed and Mr Asselineau first tries to run against his former friends then gives up. Between 2001, his election in the council, and 2007, nobody hears anything about him.
Again, I do not want to interfere in the decision process here, and I will not give my own opinion (even if it may transpire from my comments ;-)), I just hope my comments may be of any use to the WP:en users. 217.136.77.95 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. But the point is that there are enough pieces of information in well known French Newspapers to build a decent article. It proves the Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability of the article. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback.
Again, I perfectly understand that WP:en may have its own criteria, but what you say here is a bit strange. I am pretty sure that the simple fact that somebody was mentionned in a couple of newspaper articles cannot be a criteria to establish somebody's notability. David Becker, former General Counsel of the SEC has 116,000 Google hist, but no article here. Same thing for Sulaimon Brown, 48,000 hits or Irving Nathan, 9,430 hist. And I just picked a couple of names I could find in a few minutes in the Washington Post. Maybe some of these guys would pass the notability test, but the plain and simple truth is that a lot of people are mentionned in newspapers but do not pass the notability test.
I found some other examples in the announcements published in The Hill (these announcements are similar to the Carnet of Les Echos that has been used extensively as a "source" for the article). Mr Paul Arcangali is staff director of the House Armed Services Committee. 3 entries in The Hill, 3,000 Google hits, no article. Dr. Stephen Flynn, 7 hits in The Hill, over 200,000 Google hits (but probably not all about the same person), no article. Interestingly, Dr. Flynn is president of the Center for National Policy, a position that is a bit reminiscent of the position Mr Asselineau held in the economic intellligence directorate for 2 years (between 2004 and 2006 when the directorate was dissolve). Dr. Flynn had 7 entries over a 5 years period in the announcements of The Hill, while it took Mr Asselineau 12 years to have 8 entries in Les Echos (6 of which form the backbone of the sources for the article).
Any person holding various staff member position over a 10 year period and then gets elected at a local election will certainly gather some news coverage, but WP:POLITICIAN tells us that "Just being an elected local official (...) does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources".
Is there a significant coverage here? A couple of Carnet entries in Les Echos (I hope it is clear that these entries are not "articles" but mere announcements of appointments, similar to what you can read in The Hill), and a total of 3 articles covering the 6 years period when he was a member of the Paris council, and in 2 of these, Mr Asselineau is mentionned incidentally.
Regarding the other "important position" of Mr Asselineau, when he headed a directorate in the Ministry of Finance for 2 years, we have 1.5 article (one article about the creation of the directorate, and one announcement of the appointment of Mr Asselineau). And that directorate was so famous, that it never received any other coverage for the next 2 years, not even to announce the fact that it was dissolved 2 years later.
But if that is a significant coverage, then OK  :-) 217.136.76.230 (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in the most famous French Newspapers allows to build a decent article. So his notability is verified by these multiple reliable sources. Also, it seems that you are really fast at searching things in Google and you like to write long text. Thus, I would like to suggest you to write those articles, David Becker, Sulaimon Brown and Irving Nathan, if you really believe they are notable enough. I don't think Wikipedia is yet a complete encyclopaedia and it needs talent like you to enrich it. --Lawren00 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have decided, instead of argumenting, to repeat your previous argument. You know, and I know, that the "coverage by the most famous French Newspapers" is a joke. You just decide to ignore it, that's OK for me. I think I have made clear all the points I wanted to make clear. 217.136.76.230 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Mr Asselineau has been deleted in the French version of wikipedia for political reasons.He is mentioned on Médiapart at the following link : http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/daniele-lefebvre/190410/francois-asselineau-upr-qui-peut-me-dire ; by the way, if you type his name on google you'lle find out more than 50 000 entries for such a political name. That's the proof he is known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.200.162.132 (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP François Asselineau is the new president and founder of the Popular Union Republican who is a French political party created in 2007, Union Populaire Républicaine (UPR) in french. The UPR is the only political party that clearly said that France must emerge out of the European Union under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and unilaterally. UPR is more than a political party, it is a national liberation movement 77.192.31.33 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)article50[reply]
  • KEEP Francois Asselineau is the only hope of Free France, many abstainers might vote for him in the next presidential election in 2012188.62.251.203 (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Uprising[reply]
  • KEEP All the porn stars have a Wikipedia article and a bunch of FRENCH web activists want to deny to Mr Asselineau the right to have one... Is this a (bad) joke ? 193.251.54.118 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Marc Lebeau[reply]
  • This whole "Article for deletion" debate is becoming a huge mess, as could be expected, when one knows the hysterical spaming that this person has been doing on :fr Wikipedia. So we've got lots of IP and recently created user accounts saying pure non senses, hoping I guess that English speaking users won't be able to check them. FA is supposed to be a famous but controversial politicians that's been banned on French Wikipedia for political reasons, etc. That is pure nonsense. This person is a complete unknown in France. The sources quoted don't deal directly with him, and when they do so, they are not real news articles but only notifications of his appointment to not very important civil servant jobs. One when one does a proper search on Google, using the exact wording function, one finds only 392 "real" hits : [31]. What more can be said ? Gede (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This guy and his friends are big liars and fucking tall tale tellers. Asselineau is a leader in France ! http://votez2012.fr.gd/
  • STRONG KEEP François Asselineau offers democratic views for a country that desperately needs true honnest politicians dedicating themselves to the service of the country's destiny and not their own. François Asselineau probably sacrificed the future of his public servant's career in the name of integrity. Trying to implement some censorship upon him, so he cannot have a political one, is unfair and strongly unneeded. He is in no way affiliated to extreme right wing movements and offers a criticism of the institutions in the very interest of the citizens he's trying to reach. Having faith in your country and being deeply attached to it is not a sign of hatred towards anyone. Loving their countries doesn't make American people fascists, so don't corner M. Asselineau in such a way. 77.203.103.120 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC) T.P.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Action potential. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spike train[edit]

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

Non notable topic that does not meet WP:GNG. Topic already is covered by action potential. Long term redirect to the "action potential" article recently disputed.[32] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to action potential -Pontificalibus (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to action potential. Spike train is common terminology in neurology and thus definitely notable. However, there is absolutely no need to have this as a separate article. Redirect insofar warranted as I don't believe there is a different association for it than in the neural sciences. Nageh (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to action potential as well. No need for separate article.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Fouch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:N's guidelines on college athletes, as he has not: won a national award or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, been inducted into the the College Football Hall of Fame or gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. TM 14:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a simple click of the "news" link in the nomination shows a good amount of significant coverage, well within the general notability guideline. While the subject does indeed fail WP:ATHLETE and other sports-specific measures, the subject more than exceeds requirements for general notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What 'good amount of significant coverage' are you referring to? He briefly played quarterback for a college football team, so ofcourse he there is some coverage, but it hardly passes GNG. If you are referring to this and this, they are hardly more than local news articles which establish little to nothing about the player other than he was in fact briefly a starting quarterback for a losing NCAA football team. Other than that, I am not seeing anything even close to being non-trivial.--TM 05:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh Okay we'll play it your way:

  1. The Seattle Times is a nationally-read newspaper with nationwide coverage. I suppose one could argue (though many would disagree) that it would be a regional paper. It certainly is not "local" coverage.
  2. Fox Sports has a nice photo and brief article here (which could be notable because it's a combined MSN/FOX article... but that's another story)
  3. ESPN has a nice article here about his major involvement in one game in particular
  4. WTHI-TV Terra Haute shows an article that features him. That would be more "local" coverage, but it certainly lends credence
  5. The Tuscon Citizen paper covers him here when he stepped into the starting role at UW.
  6. Spokane Review another major article, this in a regional paper.
  7. USA Today article has several paragraphs on his generally-accepted poor performance in one particular game (in addition to the routine statistics at the top of the page)
  8. Indiana Stateman provides another regional news article
  9. The New York Post seems to think enough to mention him in this article snd provide a photo
  10. Los Angeles Times It's a pay-per-view article, but the search engine shows that he's mentioned in this article too (The free abstract doesn't mention him).
  11. Google News returns 900+ articles. Some are about a high school football lineman and obviously not about the subject in question, but I'd encourage you to take a closer look.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being mentioned in an article on a game he played it is of absolutely no matter here. It all falls under WP:ROUTINE. GNG states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." How many of these sources could you use to actually write something resembling an actual article? The ESPN (simple review of an individual game, like all other games played in NCAA throughout entire year), Fox Sports, Terra Haute, Tucson Citizen and Spokane Review (see ESPN) are all extremely trivial. They are not in-depth at all and simply state he played in a few games. I suggest you re-read GNG and ponder what you think the words trivial and in-depth mean.--TM 14:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we disagree. I find the information provided in those articles (and the 900-or-so others) excellent and an ongoing indication of notability of the individual and not trivial at all. The sources most definitely go into detail of thie subject, the coverage is far beyond the "routine" coverage of game scores and statistics, they absolutely are more than trivial mentions, and they certainly could be added to the article in question--if I have time later today or tomorrow I will do so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think "Mobile quarterbacks usually cause fits for the Wildcats, but UA had to change up its extensive defensive preparation when Washington’s Jake Locker went down with a broken thumb last week against Stanford. Ronnie Fouch, more of a pocket passer, will start his first game for the Huskies." is in-depth coverage, (as you claim regarding the Tucson article), then I hope you seriously look up the definition of in-depth.--TM 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim "in-depth coverage" with the Tuscon article. The only time those words appear on this page are in your comments, not in mine (save for this entry by me). Please refrain from manufacturing arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note on the issue of what constitutes sufficient coverage to establish general notabilty. While I agree with TM that some local media outlets are entitled to less weight, that agreement doesn't apply here. This would apply to a small town newspaper running a story on the local high school football team, but it does not IMO apply to feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers. In this case, we have multiple feature stories on Fouch both in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times. These are Pulitzer Prize-winning metropolitan newspapers serving the State of Washington, which has a population (6.7 million) greater than most of the world's nations, including Libya, Denmark, El Salvador and Nicaragua. If we were to deem the major media outlets serving areas of such size to be "local" and therefore irrelevant in assessing general notability, that would represent a drastic change in our notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. Shell babelfish 17:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OneChicago, LLC[edit]

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

No evidence that the company meets the notability criteria, only references provided are primary sources and there doesn't appear to be significant coverage available. Shell babelfish 13:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. One of the two Single-stock futures markets that began trading in the United States 2002[33], and since 2004[34] the only one that still exists. Covered in hundreds of news articles[35], more than 100 hits at Google Books, more than 100 hits at Google Scholar[36]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with those hits is the actual mentions. Short of Chicago papers which discuss mundane details (staffing changes etc) and PRNewsWire, I wasn't able to find anything that did much more than mention the company in passing. Same problem with the books. There are a lot of them though, so if I missed something significant that could be used to fix the article, could you point that one(s) out? I'll be happy to update the article. Shell babelfish 21:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the coverage is behind pay walls, but how about, for example, this 2006 article from Forbes? [37]--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh - paywalls are a problem. That's at least a start, hopefully someone with easy library access can find a few more. Since that invalidates my concerns, I'll take down the AfD notice. Shell babelfish
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   -- Lear's Fool 02:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Louise Gittleman[edit]

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

Page was created by the person the page is about. It needs to be deleted and recreated by a third party, if a third party ever wanted to do so. The current page is not accurate or unbiased, and attempts to correct the problem are repeatedly reversed. Algittle (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep First of all, nomination does not cite a valid criteria for deletion. (See WP:IDONTLIKEIT). If there was a COI when the article was created, it's since been addressed and balanced by other editors. Sources demonstrate sufficient notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject meets Wikipedia notability standards; any discovered problems in the existing article can be easily remedied. A Google News search for "Ann Louise Gittleman" & detoxification turns up extensive coverage of subject and her works by major print media, including the New York Times, New York Post, Newsday, Washington Post, Miami Herald and others. --CliffC (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person is notable. The nominator was the original author of the article last June. Originally, the article was a self-promotional puff piece full of gushing praise for this nutritionist. Other editors re-wrote the article to remove peacock terms and reflect what the reliable sources actually say about this person's work, and now the subject doesn't like the article. No convincing reason to delete the article has been offered. Cullen328 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The "criticism" section strikes me as overly aggressive and could use a slight toning down of volume, in my estimation. This seems to be a public figure for whom encyclopedic biography would be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - {{db-a7}}. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayrton Moreira[edit]

Ayrton_Moreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Apart from years and places of birth and death, there is NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER about this person. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I see a rough consensus to delete, with User:Mbinebri staking the strongest position.Kubigula (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bebe Zeva[edit]

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

Useless page about irrelevant personality Kristinelang (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Clearly a fashion writer; several solid sources. That she's young (late teens) in the fashion world isn't a minus, but a plus, because fashion is extra-important to teenaged females, and my sense is she's a fashion leader; she'll probably become more influential over time. Still, at present, she's somewhat borderline in notability, but I think on the side of "keep".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If and when she becomes more influential, then she will have a page that fulfills WP notability. She's more a blogger then a writer, and not a very famous one at that. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Writing articles for websites is not the same as being covered by them, and I find it hard to be impressed when those websites are the variety that call themselves magazines to sound more credible than they likely are. The Seventeen magazine source is something, but I'd prefer to have more than a three-minute interview to establish this blogger as notable. Gnews returns nothing.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Not a notable person in any way shape or form. I got to this page from this individual's personal facebook page and I surmise that she wrote most of it herself. 76.98.237.76 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am voting to keep this for a couple reasons. It was just submitted and closed at the beginning of the month. Both submitters are new red linked accounts with minimal edit history which leads me to the possibility of sockpuppetry and most importantly I personally don't like the "notability" argument for this one. It seems like there are some mid grade references and several of them so I see no need to hurry and delete this. Its not hurting anything other than being of dubious notability IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. her entry on Thought Catalog says: "Bebe Zeva is a seventeen year old ex-suburbanite from Las Vegas, Nevada. BIO Bebe Zeva attends high school online and identifies herself as a cool-hunter, people-watcher, and relevant wallflower. She intends to pursue a career in journalism and sociology, earning an income doing exactly what her mother said not to do: judge people." That's good enough for me. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Hatch[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Aside from the smattering of news coverage, it is unclear that this case will be notable in the long run. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete don't see how he meets WP:PERP. we don't create articles for all murderers and even if they were murdered in jail. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. In this case, we have to consider WP:VICTIM as well as WP:PERP. At the moment, it's too early to tell if the murder of Hatch in prison will have long-term implications. However, if anything, it may turn out that the alleged perpertrator of Hatch's murder, Damien Fowkes, is more notable in the long run, particularly in view of the earlier attack on Ian Huntley. --RFBailey (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitly enough material to justify keeping this article for now. His death was covered by major media and so on. The guessing game is a difficult one, predicting either sustained notaiblity over a long time is just that a guessing game. In situations like that I always take the side of hope and says keep so that time can tell us who is right.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think WP:NOTTEMP applies, but I'm not sure which way it applies. If the subject was notable in the past, then he was notable and the article stands. But if the notability is questionable, and there's little chance of future coverage, then we should delete. Might not be a bad idea to keep now and revisit this one after some time has passed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with RFBailey. I created the article due to interest and media coverage and having done some research thought he may be notable enough due to the number of offences, the controversy caused, the fact that his conviction caused the government to look into other sex offenders. However, if Damien Fowkes is convicted, it would be nice to merge this page with that one, if possible. I realise that the implications of his conviction have not yet been discussed, but I could easily write more on that if need be. - Mezuu64 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe Hatch may have received the whole life tariff. If he did, that is incredibly rare in the UK, especially for only a single murder. As such, it could be compared to death penalties (banned in most of Europe), which in some cases are viewed as giving increased notability. In addition, major questions were asked and a review ordered as to how the two prisoners came into contact at all. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he fails to meet any of the criteria for WP:PERP. - Dravecky (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:PERP.4meter4 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't it about time for this discussion to close? The nomination is now 10 days old and plenty of people have made comments.4meter4 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 00:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few months, noting that there are reliable sources that discuss the person somewhat, and that this is not a BLP. It takes time for WP:NOTNEWS to be proven as opposed to predicted. New sources may arise soon. Also, allow time to look for a suitable merge target. If nothing changes, this page should be deleted in a few months, as failing BIO1E and NOTNEWS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO. Has passed WP:NOTNEWS already with alot of coverage by media.--81.237.218.107 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — 81.237.218.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Involvement in two events which are of limited and temporary significance. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:PERP and WP:VICTIM. Maybe an article about the guy who's said to have killed him & attacked Ian Huntley instead, I'm not sure. Bob House 884 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Run-of-the-mill WP:PERP and WP:ONEEVENT fail. Not everyone that gets a bit of press for committing a crime gets a Wikipedia article, we're not a police blotter. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few months can not see the harm in that. It is currently a predicted or assumed non-notability as to in fact proven non-notability. It takes time for WP:NOTNEWS to be proven as opposed to predicted.--HelloKitta (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't normally hang onto things that don't meet notability guidelines at the moment but which may become notable in future, but I understand that you and SmokeyJoe may be concerned about losing the content altogether. Perhaps deletion and userfying to someone relevant would address your concerns? Bob House 884 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there in lays the issues here, me and Smokeyjoe and a number of other users find it notable now. For now it is an assumed non-notability per choice as in comparison to in fact proven non-notability without a doubt. That is why we suggest waiting a few months until we can prove the non-notability instead of predicting or assuming non-notability. The AFD so far is neither a Keep or a Delete majority either so a few months wait will not in any way harm. As then a more certain Keep or delete decision can be made which will certainly be a strong decision to one or the other side. In the case of this article it was first Deleted but re-evaluated and put on again for a few extra days as it was found that there first of all were no consensus for either side also the AFD was not up long enough to provide a certain "result". That to me also proves that there are users of a Keep opinion or atleast a "Wait a few months" opinion that perhaps never got the chance to raise their opinions. So my conclusion to all of this is that a No consensus or Weak keep in favour of waiting a few months and then see what has happen (either for keep or delete definitly) is in the best interest of the Wikipedia and this article. Hope the answer satisfies you.--HelloKitta (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – What is being lost it that an AfD is not a traditional !vote. Admins do not look at the number of Keeps vs. the number of Deletes and decide based on the score. What is taken into account is the support provided behind the Keep/Delete !vote. For instance, if I look at one of the comments supporting a Keep !vote it states, "reliable sources that discuss the person somewhat, and that this is not a BLP." This is not a valid reason to keep an article. (A "somewhat" supported article is probably questionable support and any BLP can be deleted if the sources are not adequate.) If something is not notable now, then it should be removed until notability can be established. There is not a provision in Wikipedia to hold on to something that is not notable. If fact there is plenty against doing so. BTW - the Afd was not reinstated because there was no consensus – the consensus was obvious and based on that consensus it was deleted, the AfD was reinstated because it was felt the duration of the AfD was too short. ttonyb (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bob, I am not so much worried about loosing content. It can be userfied, undeleted on discovery of new sources, or the existing content can be re-created from the existing sources that aren't going anywhere. I'm more concerned about the lack of encouragement to the new user, Mezuu64. I think you second sentence "Maybe an article about the guy..." is reason to give it more time, and is what we would have done years ago, and I think that we are going to much to meta:Immediatism.

    That said, no HelloKitta, I do not find it has demonstrated wikipedia-notability. It fails multiple guidelines (all based on the same line). However, I believed that the guidelines should be read as indicative, not as mandating an immediate decision.

    I suspect that this content (if kept) will be soon merged to a different title, and if the page is kept live fora period, it better encourages editors, new and old, to be alert to new sources, and to allow for a sensible merge. One reason I think that better sources are coming is that there is a great deal of coverage of real crime in printed books. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the basis of NOTNEWS. Scumbag perp notable only for getting offed in prison for being a scumbag perp. Nothing to see here... Carrite (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a scumbag is no reason for not including this article on Wikipedia.. In that case in many parts of the world Barack Obama is considered one, for simply being the President of the US.. should we not include him because of that? No reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "...on the basis of NOTNEWS" did you find confusing? THAT was his rationale for deletion, and noting the notability of being killed in prison. Not the "scumbag" stuff. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. Yes, a lot of press coverage, but that is not enough: the GNG explicitly says, in its fifth bullet point, that significant coverage is "not a guarantee... that a subject is suitable for inclusion... For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not" - as this does. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep murder with extraordinary features and corresponding coverage. I notice we do not have an article for the murder of Sean Williams--presumably that was considered too "ordinary" -- this one isn't. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extraordinary features as DGG states. Passing WP:PERP. Its not an ordinary case.--VictoriousGastain (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Enterprise Development[edit]

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

Article seems to be mainly just a way to advertise a non-notable foundation. Also, the creator (User:Bizzwriter) has a COI given his profession, which can be seen at his LinkedIn account. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because of advertising and COI:
SPORTS for Exceptional Athletes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jrcla2 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to demonstrate notability through its references and text. Probably a nice group of people, but that is not the point here. The point here is that we need a well-above average impact on the world before it can show up in an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Through Christ Prison Ministry[edit]

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

Though it's received some local coverage around a recent controversy. This organization lacks the significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources needed to meet WP:ORG. RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE- This is simply not notable. There are multiple prison ministries. There are multiple unverified assertions made in this article. --MJHankel (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While prison ministries might be notable on the whole, this particular one doesn't appear to rise to the level of notability required here. Its received some media coverage but that was more around controversy surrounding prison ministries than this specific group. Article seems a but WP:COATRACKy as well. RadioFan (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 3 passing mentions in gnews hardly cuts it. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not enough here to establish notability in and of itsself.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would greatly appreciate your patience to fully develop this entry. This organization reaches literally thousands of inmates and is becoming more well known. --Busterthedog (talk) 2:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That reads like a crystal argument. Its going to be well known. That is not a reason to keep the artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disregarding a bunch of SPA and WP:ILIKEIT !votes as usual, we are left with a rough consensus to delete. T. Canens (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Bolshevik Tendency[edit]

AfDs for this article:
International Bolshevik Tendency (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)

No evidence of notability, defined as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Polemics with other far-left groups should not count. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete About as notable as a local ham radio club. Shii (tock) 03:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I just looked this up on wikipedia because I wanted to know about it, was really glad there was a wikepedia article on it. I'm not a member of or connected to this group in any way. I will say though, that this article does need to be rewritten. I think there is a significant difference between a small political party and a ham radio club. Notenderwiggin (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! I have had this article on my watch list for a long time. I am very interested in the Marxist movement and especially the Trotskyist movement and make use of Wikipedia to keep up on eventsat I may not otherwise know about. I have no connection whatsoever with the organization which this article is about and that makes it especially likely that I might miss significant events in its continuing evolution. I agree that the difference between an international revolutionary movement, no matter how small, and a local ham radio club is profound. Dolaro (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolaro (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the IBT, with which I have no connection, is a tiny organisation it does have some importance. If only7 because of its interaction with other larger groups butalso due to its role in the more or less defunct Socialist Labour Party. I also note that Ham radio clubs do not function at an international level and make no claims for their ideas. There is a massive difference between a hobby and revolutionary politics however impotent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.178.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Encyclopedias are for information. This is an article that provides information on a subject that some number of people consider of interest. The sources, if one cares to check them, are indeed reliable, unless Superheroes Fighting happens to have any that point to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.127.19 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the above comments address the fact that this organization does not appear to be notable. Is there a special exception that allows non-notable political organizations to have articles? The only source used is this organization's own website and publications, so the article is essentially nothing but a collection of things that this organization claims about itself. Why should it be considered reliable? Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I was just looking up something about the External Tendency of the SL and was glad to find some information on it here. The ET is mentioned in an independenct reliable source, Robert Alexanders International Trotskyism--Dudeman5685 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I withdraw my nomination. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thoughts, striking withdrawal of nomination and shifting my position back to delete. I should add that in addition to the notability issue, this article appears to be a magnet for BLP problems. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a small organisation but it is not completely insignificant. PatGallacher (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment"it is not completely insignificant" is not a Keep argument which satisfies WP:N or WP:ORG, which set a much higher bar. Edison (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is referenced only to its own website and its own magazine "1917'", along with one book which merely makes a passing reference to a quotation from the "Fourth International" on the cover of that magazine [38]. Clearly fails WP:ORG, the applicable notability guideline. So far the Keep arguments have been on the line of "I like it," or "It is significant (without citing multiple reliable and independent sources without significant coverage)," or "It is useful (I looked up something in it)." These are of little benefit to the goal of keeping the article. Any political (or religious) movement can disintegrate into smaller and smaller fractions, each of which believes it is of incredible importance, but which have not been noted by independent and reliable sources beyond perhaps passing reference, or a directory listing. Their own publications cannot establish notability. Edison (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Secondary sources are not provided which establish the notability of this group. Another problem is that without them the reader has no way to judge the importance of the group, beyond what they say about themselves. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers for the inclusion of political parties and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. This is the sort of material which encyclopedias should contain. Dollars to donuts that this group has merited substantive third party coverage in the annual series published by the Hoover Institution, Yearbook on International Communist Affairs, fat volumes published each year from 1966 to 1991. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That argument smacks of WP:ILIKEIT. To change the notability guidelines, you need to go to WP:N and WP:ORG and gut them so that articles you like do not have to have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will throw up a construction banner for a bit and see if I can get this article into a better state. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP editor who edited earlier on March 8 wishes to get in touch with me, I invite their input on my talk page, or off-wiki at [email protected]. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First round of cleanup completed, please take a look at the article again, Deletion voters. Yes, microscopic Trotskyist sects (including this one) are the subject of serious scholarly inquiry, per the Alexander book. I repeat that I have no doubt whatsoever that additional material appears in the Hoover Institution annual volumes which I have mentioned above. I've got a couple of those kicking around in part of my library in another location but will probably need to visit a university library to dig out the last volumes of the series. Trust me when I say that this serious third-party coverage is probably there. This article can be further improved through the normal editing process and I expect that it will be so improved. Carrite (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You have found and cited numerous times one encyclopedic work by Alexander, with the citations being about other groups than the subject of this article, which may have influenced it or may have been predecessors. Worldcat shows that book available in only one library (in Sweden), which is not the most convincing evidence that being discussed in it is a good proof of notability, but it is certainly a step in the right direction, to get away from exclusively citing the group's own publications. How much specific coverage does this encyclopedia of Trotskyism specifically have about the subject of this article? I do not find them in the online index to it under the name used for the article. The article only has the unreferenced claim that the "International Bolshevik Tendency" used to be called one of the groups covered in the Alexander book, leaving verifiability unsatisfied besides the questions as to notability. Not swayed to change from Delete at this point. Edison (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Begging your pardon, Alexander's book is published by Duke University Press. Here's a link for the first 182 libraries holding the book from WorldCat, which doesn't count the Danish National Library, for some reason. This is a readily available scholarly work — not that "readily available" necessarily matters in terms of usability as a Wikipedia source. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Begging your pardon, but Worldcat only linked to the one library when I checked it. That aside, do you agree that the book you cited multiple times makes never even mentions this Trot splinter group even a single time? Edison (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WorldCat often has multiple entries for a single title, caused by (I'm guessing) how different libraries create their entries. In other words, if one institution has a typo or uses a variant form of the publisher in its index for a book, that generates a separate entry in WorldCat. Misreading information from WorldCat is very easy to do, let's not beat each other up over it. -- llywrch (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with PatGallacher, the group (which had sections in various different countries) is large enough to warrant an article. --Soman (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If you take a look at WP:ORG you will find that claiming "the group is large enough" does not satisfy in any way the relevant notability guideline. In fact, no independent and reliable source cited in the article or in this AFD makes a statement about the "size" of the group, however irrelevant that fact would be. Aside: The article does not explain why they chose a silly title like something from a Monty Python skit about a fringe political group. Edison (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations. there seems to be a reasonable consensus for a WP:SMERGE and redirect. while Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film) is a fairly unlikely search term by itself, with the help of autocomplete or Jack and the Beanstalk (disambiguation) it becomes a much more likely target (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)[edit]

Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTFILM. No real coverage in third-party sources. Rotten Tomatoes, for example, lists zero reviews. Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This film was an entry in the Newport Beach Film Festival 2010. The lead actor, Colin Ford, was nominated for won a Young Artist Award for his role as Jack in this film. Rotten Tomatoes did have 11 community reviews, but none from critics. The cast includes award-winning actors Chevy Chase and Katey Segal, but the film is just somehow having a hard time reaching audiences at home. It's no understatement that this film is not their most successful, but it's still part of their filmography. Perhaps we can leave a stub notice so that editors who are more familiar with this film (e.g. past editors who created this article) can work on finding reliable sources? Jusses2 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think being an entry in a relatively minor film festival or having an actor nominated for a minor award (you've done a lot of editing of Young Artist Award and associated articles, so you probably know more about it than I - forgive me if "minor" is a mischaracterization, but there are SO many awards) is sufficient to establish notability. Also, anyone can post reviews on RT. That doesn't mean much, either. I don't think anything is going to happen with the film in the future, but certainly if it ever achieves some notability, it could be resurrected. As for past editors, I didn't even notify anyone about this because there are no real active editors except ones who were associated with the production company that made the film and were trying to promote it on Wikipedia. Nebulex was blocked. Avalonfamily, which clearly had a conflict, stopped editing in July 2010. Even this AfD has attracted almost no editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Bbb23, I wasn't really concerned about the content of those articles, just trying to point out that third-party sources do exist, despite their sparse coverage of the film. The Young Artist Award is a somewhat misunderstood award, and you're not the first one to call it a "minor award" as you can see from the article's two former (unsuccessful) AfD nominations. There are so many because it combines film, television, live theatre, and other acting awards into one. It's like an all-in-one Oscar-Emmy-Tony for junior actors. Despite outstanding work for their age, few young actors stand a chance at being nominated for one of those "major" awards (Dakota Fanning being one of the exceptions). The YAA is just a way to recognize their achievements. It's rather humbling to see that the YAA is often one of the first awards for many of the well-known actors of today, e.g. Drew Barrymore (lost the 1983 BAFTA but won the YAA), Elijah Wood (1993), Jessica Biel (1998). Sorry if this discussion is getting off-topic for this page. Jusses2 (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete(Edit: Redirect to Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations). It received a bit of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, when it was in development as shown by a Google News Archive search which included the names of 2 actors to reduce false positive (there are still some): Reuters article about it in production and several similar stories, perhaps based on a press release. This movie has 8 name-brand stars, but no entry at Box Office Mojo (which shows box office sales for most commercial theatrical releases). Somehow the producers got name brand actors for a low budget kiddie film. At Rotten Tomatoes, it actually has no reviews, while the weak 1952 Abbot and Costello film (which has only 1 reliable source) and the 2001 miniseries of similar names (2 refs) at least got some bad reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (not evidence of notability in any event), but they say this film was "in theatres" Nov 6, 2009. If it was released in 2009, why does the article title call it a "2010 film?" No reviews, even bad ones? Edison (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Pretty much a delete by default due to no reliable sources, but I'm baffled: how did something with a roster of big-name stars get made and (apparently) released without anyone taking any notice of it whatsoever. That sounds like a hoax, but there's just enough traces of it that it's definitely real (there's a trailer on youtube that looks genuine enough). I really can't explain how this apparently slipped out without anyone noticing, but there it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Yeah, I was surprised too when I saw the cast. I'm not so sure if released "in theatres" is correct. Someone listed it as direct-to-video on Katey Sagal's page. It looks like there just isn't a whole lot of information available about this film as it stands now, not enough for an article anyway. Aside from a listing in the filmography, this film is not even mentioned in the text of its actors' articles. I propose summarizing this article into a sentence to put on some of the actors' pages (Katey Sagal, Wallace Shawn, Chevy Chase, Christopher Lloyd, Gilbert Gottfried, Colin Ford) using the articles that Edison found as sources, followed by deletion of this article. Hopefully this film will eventually make a proper debut to warrant resurrection of this article. Jusses2 (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability does not imply artistic merit. A wretched script, filmed by an inept director and cameraman, with hoaky special effects, with the world's worst acting, ineptly edited, might make for a very notable film like Plan 9 from Outer Space in an earlier era. It is rare to have a large group of box office stars and not get any mention at all as either a good family film, or an adequate kiddie film to entertain preschoolers, or a wretched film as an example of what not to do. Failing to achieve any notability with these actors is like having no hand in 7 card stud, high-low. Edison (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and partial merge to Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations where a new film adaption of the tale would have reason and context. I expanded the current article and added the reliable sources I could find That the list of notables were part of a non-violent, modernized version of this classic childrens tale is worth giving them a pat on the back, but unless reviewed by a source other than the many non-reliables dedicated to children's films, I do not see this one as (yet) achieving WIkipedia notability per WP:NF. HOWEVER, and rather than a line in the article of each of the 17 notables involved, I suggest a modest sourced paragraph be instead added to the applicable section in Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations, Films, and that this current article be set as a redirect to that section. If reliable sources give the DVD some reviews, we can then revert the redirect and add the sources, as it might then meet WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent idea with Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations, Films! Looks like a good solution to me. Jusses2 (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no problem with the redirect. I looked at the two sentences that were added by Michael. I think they are more than sufficient, meaning I don't think any more is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Update I don't necessarily object to a potential redirect, but neither do I support it, primarily because "Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)" seems a rather unlikely search term. As long as the current content goes it doesn't much matter if there's a redirect or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and partial merge (to Jack and the Beanstalk#Adaptations) seems like the best idea to me. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the recent version has six references from notable sources, i.e., the main objection on non-notability is removed. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jashodaben Modi[edit]

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

Claimed spouse (not proven as actual spouse) of a notable person, one interview that parrots the claim and one op-ed piece are all the RS. Eitherways, the spouse status isn't sufficient grounds for notability in and off itself, BLP1E applies. —SpacemanSpiff 13:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is based on news articles published by reliable media houses like Frontline/Hindu and OPEN magazine: the credibility of both media houses is not in question.

The article refers not just to Jashodaben but also covers substantially other people like her colleagues and family members and also references marriage records. The Jashodaben case has been covered extensively in the media and there should be no doubt as to the authenticity of the article.

Ashlonerider (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable person. Being an "alleged" spouse of a notable politician doesn't confer notability on the subject. The mainstream coverage that exists now is enough for a couple of line inclusion in the Narendra Modi article.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jashodaben is not the alleged but the real spouse as proven by the marriage records available. removal of article or references to Jashodaben would be blanking out content Ashlonerider (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a 'claim' of being a spouse of a notable person is insufficient for notability. --rgpk (comment) 15:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited; can't see any evidences of independent notability. Salih (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COPYVIO from [40]. The two sources (one of which is a very reliable one) can be used to generate a paragraphs worth of content in the Narendra Modi article. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it looks like mere political propaganda, the source articles in question are very old and around the same time, probably touted by opponents. No proof exists.

Moreover all of Ashloneriders contributions to wikipedia look politically motivated, see his contris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerthat14 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jez Constable[edit]

Jez_Constable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Reasons for possible deletion of this page (direct from Wikipedia:deletion policy "reasons for deletion): Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) Self-published references Subjective article and a non-notable entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesKahn (talk • contribs)

  • Keep the achievements certainly look notable, just perhaps need better quality references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant talk 00:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only achievement of any SLIGHT note is a SMALL guest role in an Australian soap opera. He is mentioned in List of Neighbours characters (2010) which is more than enough of a reference. If everyone who had bit parts in television and a couple of commercials had a wiki article, article numbers would quadruple. I stand by the call for deletion. JamesKahn (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actor who's most known for a one month stint on a soap opera? Sorry, but I don't think that's enough to convey notability. I also haven't seen any significant coverage in reliable sources. If someone can find some I would be willing to change my vote, but I don't know how likely that is. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lloyd (singer). BigDom 08:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts (Lloyd album)[edit]

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

No tracklisting, cover background information. Could be recreated when more of an article can be built. Currently only the release date, April 19 is known (announced about a week ago actually), and that wasn't even updated here because of lack of attention to the article. Fixer23 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the artist's article. There is a cover image available, some track information, and producer information, but still not enough information exists for the album to warrant its own article. Strikerforce (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question, in clear cases like this, should I just redirect the article directly, instead of coming here? Fixer23 (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the artist's article. Fails WP:NALBUMS. No sourced release date, no cover and no confirmed tracks. STATic message me! 19:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't quite see what usable content there is to merge, since there's no referenced content at all and mostly unreferenced speculations. Anyone who wants to do this is probably better off starting from scratch; if someone really wants the original text, feel free to ask me on my talk page. T. Canens (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep -volume 2-[edit]

Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep -volume 2- (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game is not confirmed Kronoskh (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 8 March 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) 00:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep there clearly is not enough for an indepedent article yet as the game has not even been completed. The Kingdom hearts article is long so this section can easily be added to the main article.Tetron76 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – I think including it in Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep makes perfect sense. –MuZemike 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This shouldn't be made at all!!! There is no proof towards a "Volume Two" of Birth By Sleep, so we should delete all of it.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or at least merge. But there is no place for this article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it is a hoax, or Merge if it is actually real, and there are sources covering it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly enough internet sources to suggest that there have been previews and not a hoax.Tetron76 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it is covered in sources, then I guess it should go in Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep#Legacy or something. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOOOO. There are NO sources providing that this is a real game. NONE!--KH1MOVIE (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. You already made a statement here. Making another delete !vote will not make it count any more. Also, have you tried looking for sources? There aren't many, but they are there. [41] [42] Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources aren't valid. Those articles were users of those websites writing speculation off of what they saw in the Final Mix version. We need an actual annoucment by Square Enix that the game is real. Otherwise, it's just a hoax.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, the second source was a reader review. The first one is a paid editor though, and is a reliable source. We shouldn't be saying that "There will be a BBS v2", but "the final mix video shows this information". It doesn't deserve a whole article yet, but the main article should show something about the video. Currently Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep#Final Mix has a short sentence just saying the video exists, but doesn't say anything about it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can put a little info about Volume Two in the Final Mix section. But this article gotta go, at least until we get the confirmination.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what everybody is agreeing to. Delete means that there is absolutely no reason for this page to exist. Merge means to move the information somewhere else. Redirect means the information already exists somewhere else, and this should point to it. Nobody here is suggesting we Keep the article as it is. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY! You don't have to be a jerk about it. Gawd. Jerk.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't think I was being a jerk about it. I was just making sure you understood that you knew we were all on your side. Should I have added a smiley face? :3 Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigDom 08:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LeRoy R. Hafen[edit]

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

No evidence of notability established; while he is a professor who has written multiple works, neither he nor his work have demonstrated notability Yaksar (let's chat) 20:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person, supported by verifiable and reliable sources. Inwind (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such as what, if you don't mind me asking? The only link under sources is just a page that shows that a library has a copy of his book.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added multiple references, including to significant references in scholarly journals. The Arizona and the West reference could almost stand alone as a justification to include an article on Hafen with the amount of praise that author gives to Hafen's work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find many quotes from the works of Hafen in the works as others, such as one in Margaret Coel's 1988 Book Chief Left Hand: Southern Arapaho. There are many more. I am not sure if this will help but Yaksar's claim that Hafen's works are not notable makes me wonder if maybe I should compile a large collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - the references provided don't seem good enough to me to show that he was a notable historian/academic. He may have been fairly widely quoted, but how many reliable sources are there about him? Perhaps Johnpacklambert should post the collection he refers to above. Robofish (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you perform the minimal due diligence before !voting, like doing a Google search. We aren't !voting on the state of the article at any given time, but the notability of the person. That requires at least a Google search in Google News Archive or Google Books. I found four short biographies online. What due diligence did you perform before you !voted? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • here [43] is the link to the google scholar results for Hafen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Plains Journal, Vol. 18, 1979, p. 33-40 is an article that BYU's catalogue says has the subject of "LeRoy R. Hafen" with Harvey Lewis Carter as the author. The reference is easy to find, but someone will have to go to the BYU special collections to see their copy of the article or explore a library that has it. There are 325 libraries that have at least some copies of this journal listed in Worldcat, the closest one to me is UofM. I guess I could also request the article through inter-library loan. Colorado Heritage: The Journal of the Colorado Historical Society in its 1985 edition had a two page article by David N. Wetzel on Hafen. Here [44] is a sample of one of the lists of citations of Handcarts to Zion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • David J. Weber in "Mexico's Far Northern Frontier, 1821-1854: Historiography Askew" in Western Historical Quarterly Vol. 7, no. 3 (Jul 1976) p. 279-293 lists LeRoy and Ann Hafen as two of the four historians who in studying the northern frontier of Mexico had gone beyond speaking of just one of the three Mexican states involved (California, New Mexica, Texas). Later in the same article Weber speaks of Hafen's The Mountain Men and the Fur Trade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's plenty of reliable third-party sourcing about the subject, contra Robofish. He clearly passes WP:GNG and probably also passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of family relations in American football[edit]

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

This is an unreadable, unmaintainable, and completely unsourced list that purports to be of related players and coaches in American football. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which includes "long and sprawling lists of statistics". B (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the notability of the topic, I recall seeing many articles over the years discussing the prevalence of family relations at the top levels of athletics. While I don't have time right now to search for them, here's one such article from The New York Times: Dad-Son Duos Run Up the Score. See also Greatest father-son combos from ESPN.com. Cbl62 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral. I can see the value and the notability, but there needs to be some changes in this article for other policy reasons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)2011 March 8[reply]
  • Keep per references above, and don't forget political families.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)2011 March 8[reply]
  • Comment: Although, as this discussion now stands, consensus is to keep, I decided to relist the debate. The fact that it contains dozens of living people and zero sources should be addressed. If anyone wants the article moved to their userspace so as to gradually add sources I would be happy to make that move. J04n(talk page) 04:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not the only this kind of article. See Category:Sports families. So why to delete only 1 of them? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severe rewrite needed. Even if adequate sourcing can be found, this article needs a major rewrite. It's difficult to tell what it's trying to say. Here's a quick list of basic things I think need to be done before this article is anywhere near a decent level:
  • More concise entries! Instead of listing everything each person has done, cut it down to one or two major things (or simply none at all and simply list their roles; they are linked to the appropriate articles, after all) and remove the last name from the beginning. An example listing would be "Alex Agase (player and head coach) and Lou Agase (assistant coach)" or something like that.
  • Do "twins" really need to be separated from "brothers"? It's an interesting side note, but it could easily be added as a note to the end of their entry in the brothers section. For example: "Tiki Barber (running back) and Ronde Barber (cornerback), twins".
  • Alphabetization!
  • Standard format. The beginning is all constant, but the cousins and in-laws sections have a different format. I like the in-laws section the most, quite frankly, and think it should be adopted for the rest of the page.
Anyway, that would at least help a little. A table (such as the one used in List of family relations in the NHL) would be MUCH easier on the eyes, too. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigDom 16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of sister cities in New England[edit]

List of sister cities in New England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Merge. Nice list. But of no value separately. Merge (distribute) into appropriate cities. This stand-alone list serves no particular purpose. See WP:NOTDIR. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These all tend to be "feel good" stuff which amounts to someone sending someone a letter now and then and a couple of people dropping in and announcing they are from x. In other words, puffery, which is fine. The world needs puffery. Even Wikipedia needs puffery. Just not at this level. Student7 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. - WP:notdir does not apply on any of its seven points. WP:INDISCRIMINATE likewise does not apply on any of its seven points. The list has a scope and is of a factual nature. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but Split. Maybe this article would be better served if it was split into different articles. JB82 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge- This information is simply not useful in this form and redundant at best. Sister cities are already listed on the city articles. Having a list of all of them is simply waisted space. Many other lists compile many things not as readily available as sister cities. If this info is not already in the city articles as it should be, it should be put in them, and this article should be deleted. --MJHankel (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sister cities program is notable, and there should be a list or lists of them. Unfortunately, a list of all of the cities in the nation would be too massive, and even this list seems too big. I tend to agree with JB82 that it might make more sense to make state articles. Those persons who are interested in the sister cities program generally-- i.e., checking to see which places have them-- pretty much do not have the time to do the one-by-one search that would come from limiting the information to the individual towns. I've never understood that argument anyway. Mandsford 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the nomination is only for this one page, and does not include the other 94 page in Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities, suggests that the nominator is unaware of the importance that some people place on sister/twin city arrangements. Sister/twin arrangements are a notable topic, and there are far too many of them for one list, so Wikipedia has split the topic into articles (including this one) for specific countries, sub-national regions, states/provinces, New England. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Besides the fact that sister cities are a notable topic, I like how this list is regionally based. While I can understand the usefulness of state-specific lists for larger states (see "List of sister cities in California"), regional lists are a nice way to do it for smaller states. Something as specific and as small as "Sister cities of Springfield, Illinois," on the other hand, I find to be better suited for a merging discussion than this one on New England. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly not indiscriminate and consolidates disparate information into a nice single location. Because the New England states are relatively small, grouping them together also makes sense rather than separating by state. --Polaron | Talk 15:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Nicely done list, useful content, concrete standards for inclusion, limited in scope, nicely documented. Why the hell is this being nominated for deletion again? Carrite (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. There is large disagreement below as to how WP:UNDUE should be interpreted in this case. I note that consensus appears to be against merging this content into the main MLK article. lifebaka++ 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues[edit]

Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._authorship_issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Delete or merge per undue weight, lacks context; page exists only to discredit King. Isolating the issue into a subarticle like this is not the right way to address it.--The lorax (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: --JimWae (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Page exists to deal with the issue. Page presents the issue in a balanced way. I did a lot of the early work on this article and it gave me no pleasure to have to deal with it. If people are NOT aware of this issue and do not have a resource to deal with it, they will not be prepared to answer people who bring it up. If you think the article is unbalanced, please say where & suggest alternative wording. The reason the page is on Snopes is not "only to discredit King", nor is that the reason here.[reply]

Oppose: --Seth W (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC) I agree with Jim Wae. The page addresses an important issue, and should remain in place. I would, however, note that the same professor did the first read of Boozer and King's theses. The professor may have simply messed up, but it is still a valid defense of King's work.[reply]

I'm interpreting this vote as a keep or merge, was that your intent, Dezidor?--The lorax (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate and more detailed article but add more information from this article into Martin Luther King, Jr.. --Dezidor (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this suggestion. This sub-article not only offers an insight into King's work, but also touches upon the differing treatment of plagiarism in academic, folk and oratory fields. More work is needed both here and linking into the main biography, but this is a notable, verifiable (and interesting) topic. SFB 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. No matter what readers feel about the character of MLK and his plagiarism practice, it's a fact that he did it. I support the maintenance of this page, with necessary reference to the main MLK article. gchang6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchang6 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The page is devoted to a very important issue, broadly discussed at present. It is well-balanced and by no way discredits the great role of MLK in the American history. It might be connected with the discussions of (possible) Plagiarism in other important personalities such as the German poet Bertold Brecht and the Nobel Prize Winner Michail Sholokhov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.102.141 (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is ridiculous. The BU investigation into the dissertation is worth a mention in his main article, but the "I Had a Dream" accusations are largely baseless, as even the snopes article acknowledges. Even if the latter "controversy" was actually sound, we'd still be left with 2 cases. Does 2 really translate into "authorship issues" ? No. Delete this undue weight nonsense and ensure that the dissertation question is in Martin Luther King, Jr.. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:FRINGE. The "oppose" votes smell like a canvassing. Brandmeister t 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & Tarc. Worthy of mention in the MLK article, but not a page unto itself.--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:Fringe and the rational arguments above. While I don't want to make any direct accusations, I'd also encourage the closing admin to look into the string of oddly formatted "oppose" votes, some of which are from editors coming back for the first time in years. But of course, hopefully my fears are wrong. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing FRINGY about saying there's a problem with his dissertation. There is no reliable source denying there is a problem with his dissertation. As for UNDUE WEIGHT, where is the violation of "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." - there is NO viewpoint that there is not an issue with his dissertation. I agree the claim re the speech is dopey piling-on, but people need to be prepared to reply to it too -- And so I have recently added more material to make this as obvious as possible without saying so. I also agree there's not enough about this in the MLK article - but there has been consistent opposition to adding anything more there - and it's hard to be sure it's not just misguided censorship. If even half of this article were added to the MLK article, we would surely see complaints of UNDUE WEIGHT there (and such might be justified). Paragraph after paragraph of the dissertation is copied and unattributed - with estimates of about 1/3 of the total dissertation being copied. The investigation reports use the word plagiarism - and not just for his dissertation, but for several other papers. THESE issues are ALL dealt with at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute site. Are they also out to discredit MLK?--JimWae (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the point. Yes there are recognized plagiarism issues with his dissertation, but after that its just a bit of fringe-ish caterwauling about the dream speech. 1 real issue and 1 not-really-an-issue do not justify a standalone "authorship issues", plural, article. This is worth a paragraph in the main article. Tarc (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Plural is clearly appropriate as it extends to his other papers also, as already stated above. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute has more material that could be included regarding the speech. A paragraph in the MLK article is certainly called for. Such was removed several times long ago.<<ie: a summary of this article>> But one paragraph cannot tell the whole story - that is the function of this separate article. It has long been my opinion that quoting from Carey's speech does not belong in the main text<<of THIS article>> - but perhaps in footnote. However, there was nobody to back me up on this when the issue arose AGAIN. JimWae (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Plural is not appropriate, for reasons I stated earlier. What we have here is pretty much a WP:POVFORK of the main MLK article. If it was rejected from the main article, I dunno, that is something that will have to be discussed editorially there on the talk page. Splitting content, especially rejected content, is never a good idea. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone is welcome to point out anywhere in this article that there is an NPOV problem--JimWae (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fascinating article. Some of the sources are questionable from a RS perspective e.g. the blogs. The Speeches section smells like WP:OR. But all in all there's enough here for notability. Lionel (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you just said could be an argument for why this article deserves to be deleted.--The lorax (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JimWae has made some strong arguments to keep the article, but I am swayed most by the suggestion that merging this into MLK would create WP:UNDUE problems. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is undue weight to have it in the main article, how would it be any less to devote a standalone article to the matter? Tarc (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment seems to indicate a misunderstanding of what WP:UNDUE is about. 1> There are long sub-articles on Thomas Jefferson (and his problems). Including any one of them in the main article in their entirety would be undue weight. It is NOT UNDUE that those articles exist. There are articles on many conspiracy theories that WOULD be undue if they were fully contained in other articles. 2>These is NO reliable opposing view claiming that MLK did not plagiarize --JimWae (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of policy, buddy boy, and overblowing a single significant incident of plagiarism into a standalone article is running afoul of it. This is little different from people trying to create things like Barack Obama Muslim rumor a few years ago; an article on a "controversy" gets redirected to a sub-section of an existing article. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - no need to make it personal or bring in guilt by association. The main diff is that Obama is not Muslim & MLK DID plagiarize - and this is not a rumor. Or would you rather that people think it WAS a rumor & learned about this "on the street"? There is no "controversy" about whether he did it or not.--JimWae (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The "controversy" is whether it is a big deal or not. Tarc (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard for having an article is WP:NOTABILITY not Big Deal--JimWae (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No shit. The problem is, it isn't terribly notable...certainly not enough for an article, which is why we're here at AfD in the first place. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody, had claimed lack of notability until you just did. Seems like the reason for the AfD keeps changing. Check out WP:NOTABILITY - it clearly passes. Why would you want people to think this is a rumour? I started this article to keep the topic from overwhelming the main article, after someone inserted the topic, unsourced, in a somewhat scurrilous manner. I was going to just delete it, until I remembered that I had heard something about it before. I, for one, do not want this to become a rumour that people "learn about" on dirty blogs and have no readily-available way to research properly. --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth a mention in the main article. Not here. Again, WP:UNDUE, and I am a bit tired of repeating myself so consider this the proverbial "last word". Tarc (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    thing is, you have done about as much (or more) "switching reasons" as you have done "repeating". Were I to repeat my response to UNDUE, then we'd have repetition. --JimWae (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall comment - Why are we still here? This has been open for exactly 1 month now, we're 3 weeks overdue for some sort of resolution. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an issue which has drawn controversy and significant academic debate, and thus should have coverage on Wikipedia. User:Malik Shabazz's UNDUE argument also has merit. —Lowellian (reply) 00:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Mravec[edit]

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

PROD removed with no reason given. Hasn't played a senior match, so doesn't pass the sports notability guideline and also doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, so doesn't pass the general notability guideline. Stu.W UK (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree completely with nom (though that may be because he used my PROD rationale in his deletion nomination statement ;). Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you put it better! Stu.W UK (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, thanks :) Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Benz Limousine W126 (1000SEL)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mercedes Benz Limousine W126 (1000SEL) (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)

Sounds like an advert, separate article is not needed as article Mercedes-Benz W126 contains info about this version.SHAMAN 15:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if this was anyway endorsed by Mercedes-Benz then a passing mention should be made at Mercedes-Benz W126. A separate article for an aftermarket rebadge does not satisfy WP:Notability. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I added a bullet about this variation in the W126 article. It appears to be one of the many tuned versions of this car.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, default to keep. BigDom 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Levin[edit]

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

Fails to meet even the basic criteria established in WP:BIO. After looking at the sources, and the available information found on the web. I see no reason why this page should be kept. The only reliable source is the "Register" article talking about how he mismanaged OPN funds, the rest are just links to freenode.net, unreliable "chat news" sites (the citations to which I have removed), and a page that he himself wrote. In addition, this seems more like a memorial than anything else. A guy who has been dead for years will most likely not become notable in the future, either. LiteralKa (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale behind the second AfD is even more relevant than ever now:

WP does not have an article on the creator of DALnet, Dalvenjah, nor the original admin of EFnet, Greg Lindahl. Those networks have at times been much more popular (and are much more legendary in the IRC business) than Freenode. There is no reason to consider it as anything else. [...] It isn't notable enough to warrant anything other than an article about the network itself (which we have).

Sad to say, I find no citations for his death AT ALL, his death, even, is hardly notable.

I would also argue that the PDPC is not notable, but I will wait and see how this deletion discussion goes, first. LiteralKa (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Let me see... IRC is notable, Freenode is notable, and was founded by him. The previous couple deletion discussions were practically Snow Keeps. An important piece of internet history. Eauhomme (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED, which specifically recognizes that notability is regularly "inherited" between notable creations and their creators. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I would argue PDPC is not notable. Second, WP:NOTINHERITED also says that "parent notability should be established independently". Can you establish independent notability for Rob? I sure can't. LiteralKa (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge As best as I can tell, he is a very successful person who is "notable" in the general sense of the word but does not meet the technical requirements for notability here. He doesn't appear to have had articles written about him specifically, so I think the relevant information about him should be merged into the works that he has created. There are only a few paragraphs here, so that should be pretty easy. I'm more than willing to strike my !vote, however, if someone with better research skills than me can find some detailed articles about Mr. Levin himself. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also support a redirect for the reasons that Mr. Marshall eloquently explained below. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sorry, he's notable, he was notable then, he is notable now. notability is not lost because people do not want to think that the history of an irc network is not notable. please revisit and rebut prior afd's before nominating with the same old same old, if you think you can argue against those afd's and win, fine. but this nomination is the 4th, even jimbo said lilo is notable, i mean come on.....--Buridan (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Where did Jimbo say that? Would you be so kind as to provide a link to him saying that? (You should probably read WP:JIMBOSAID.) I would also suggest taking a look at the dates of the last AfD's. (Hint: they were right after he died, the entire reason for keeping the page was because he died.) LiteralKa (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • it is actually in the archives of the discussion page... and no... they aren't right after they died. two were, and the last to were a year and around the next year. still doesn't change the situation, notability doesn't go away and you should have read the old one first and not even started this one. and one thing you really shouldn't do before an afd is to stip the article for content... it makes us question the purpose of the afd.--Buridan (talk)
  • Strong Vote for PURGE (delete) There's very little redeeming quality in this. I've got to agree with the person who nominated this for deletion, there's only one real reliable source for this, and we can't accurately call the freenode.net or freenode blog sources "reliable". --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep This is an obvious troll Kunwon1 (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)— kunwon1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Yes, an obvious troll with noble intentions. Go back to plotting my downfall, kunwon. LiteralKa (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Vote for Keep I'm not sure how a person can not be notable and yet have their death as a major story on Slashdot: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/06/09/16/2152243/Rob-Levin-lilo-of-FreeNode-Passes . Rob created freenode and ran it. Maybe he would have done interviews with blogs and that sort of thing if he had known that some jerkfaces were going to come on here and continually try to make this page not notable. The man has been dead for years now, and this continues to keep going on? Seriously, this is childish. The deletionists need to back off. User talk:The_Tick —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC). — The_Tick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Slashdot is not a reliable source, nor was it a "major story". You are greatly exaggerating the importance of this man. I would also appreciate it if you didn't call me a "jerkface". :x LiteralKa (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say that Slashdot is a source of variable reliability. I think it's sufficiently reliable in the case of this particular story. --RussNelson (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • They cite IRC logs. Not very reliable in this case. LiteralKa (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Maybe he would have done interviews with blogs": then he still wouldn't have any reliable sources! LiteralKa (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I do NOT believe this is a legitimate CfD since the person issuing the call had eviscerated the article prior to deciding that it should be deleted. This kind of behavior should not be rewarded. RussNelson (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CFD applies to categories, not articles. The page literally cited IRC logs and blogs about IRC. These were clearly not notable and needed to be removed. And there didn't need to be a section on the origin of his nickname, either. LiteralKa (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you that this behavior was unhelpful, but it doesn't automagically invalidate the policy-based arguments in the AfD rationale; just like we shouldn't reward LiteralKa, we should not keep a deletable article just to punish them. WP:ADHOM. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for removing citations to blog posts and an "IRC chat mag" as well as a section about the origin of his IRC nickname. LiteralKa (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • When police use unlawful means to get information, they are punished by having that information banned from the courtroom. Applying the same principle, this CfD should be immediately resolved in favor of Keep. If, at some time in the future, someone else (not LiteralKa) is inspired to delete this article, they can re-open a CfD. Perhaps you disagree? Then I think at a minimum, LiteralKa should be prohibited from arguing his case, since he tried to prejudice it by removing arguable citations. If there is no penalty for prejudicing a CfD, it will happen again, and again. --RussNelson (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you think someone is removing reliable sources from an article it is best to bring the matter up at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. It would be wise to review the page on Identifying reliable sources first though. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The nominator does not really own an AfD, the closing admin makes a decision based on the entire input received. If a user is acting in a disruptive manner, this weighs heavily against them and may even get them blocked. But if an AfD discussion is grounded in the deletion policy, it continues. Had this process been entirely improper, an admin would have closed it already. The criteria for that is described at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been plagued by subjectivity since many years ago, and this discussion is following suit, sadly. AfD is not a vote and if everyone registers strong opinions that just looks silly. Anyway, the article is really short on quality sources. Significant coverage by secondary sources is very scant. IMO, Rob Levin's personal notability could derive from the basic fact of running OPN/freenode/PDPC for some time, but this may reasonably be contested as not particularly notable per se, not only because of the general notability guideline but because several other people held positions of similar importance/relevance in these organizations and aren't considered notable enough just because of it. However, again IMO, the actual source of his personal notability would be his running OPN/freenode/PDPC in a manner that attracted much negative attention in the community at the time. This should help the notability argument in general - he didn't just fulfill a role, he did it in a manner that was noticed. Yet, that could be contested as unverifiable because apparently we've lost (or never had) the reliable sources attesting to the variety of peculiar practices that made him stand out in a negative manner. Once the article is gutted of this information, it does look non-notable - a lot of people found charities and a lot of people operate IRC networks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the meantime I skimmed the previous AfDs, and found that none of them seemed to demonstrate much in the way of WP:RS for notability - it was mostly people offering personal opinions on notability, rather than demonstrating reliable sources for it. This looks like a good place to remind people of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge With the unreliable citations gone, the article does not have much basis. I suggest full deletion, or possibly merging with the PDPC or Freenode articles. I think a delete would be best though, due to the limited number of citations. Harry (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
are they gone, or did someone remove them without first checking to see they were in archive.org? or otherwise available? --Buridan (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that by "gone", he meant "removed from the page, as they failed WP:RS". LiteralKa (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strange they were reliable for what 3 or 4 years.... and now they aren't. i wonder why the webpage doesn't mention the change in standards somewhere. --Buridan (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were never reliable. The page was deleted during the first AfD because of that. That's a logical fallacy: "because they were used for so long, they must be reliable". If this were a more well-known article, perhaps that would be true. But it isn't. LiteralKa (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - This biography already passed AfD three times, the last two not even close. Notability is not temporary. Improve through normal editing. Move along. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC
    • It failed the first one, and the only reason the last two passed were because people were emotional because of his death. Also, the last AfD is five years old. LiteralKa (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guys, please stop using this quick retort style, you're not helping your arguments and it's detrimental to the discussion process in general. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate how your comment isn't a case of WP:NOTAGAIN. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eauhomme, although there is a possibility that some of the content could be copied and pasted from http://sportifi.com/Persons/Rob-Levin/bio without permission of the copyright holder. Minimac (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge As per nom, fails to meet basic requirements of WP:BIO Acostoss (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Peer-Directed Projects Center. I can see a convincing argument that Rob Levin is not independently notable, but "non-notable" doesn't mean "delete". "Non-notable" means "shouldn't have his own article". And if we've decided he shouldn't have his own article, then it's very stupid to turn Rob Levin into a redlink that encourages an inexperienced editor to write one; and besides, "Rob Levin" is a plausible search term. We can be more helpful to our end users than just giving them a redlink. A redirect would take them to some of the information they seek, and there's no reason why Peer-Directed Projects Center shouldn't contain a sentence or two about Mr Levin. In terms of our formal procedures, we're supposed to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before we delete this material, and a redirect is a perfectly reasonable alternative.—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dismayed at the level of emotional investment that LiteralKa is showing here by feeling the need to post a retort to every "Keep" vote. Make your own arguments and let them stand on their merits, please.
    Myself, I'm leaning toward keep: the article has only one RS right now, but I find it very hard to believe that more could not be found. Obituaries, for example, are published, so someone who's willing to do the research would likely find his (which is probably in an ungoogleable 2006 local newspaper), thus sourcing the bottom section. I say that "improve before deleting" applies here -- people have put work into the article, and that work shouldn't be lost simply because some Wikipedians would prefer to delete an article than to find sources that almost certainly exist. rspεεr (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • believe me, I tried LiteralKa (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • LiteralKa, please stop doing that. You already pasted the same link above. Once is sufficient, twice is annoying, especially in the form of a one-liner. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously the person above did not see it. LiteralKa (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • How is a cursory Google News search relevant here? You said above that you couldn't find a reliable citation of his death. I suggested that it might be in a newspaper not indexed by Google. You retorted with the same Google News search you posted before. I am aware that simply dying does not confer notability, but in my view the article isn't lacking notability, it's only lacking verifiability which a newspaper article would easily provide. rspεεr (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I linked to it to show that I did try and find sources. That's not (nearly) the only thing I did, just an example of it. LiteralKa (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in case you did not page back through the history to see the fairly well cited version of the page [45] with the non-notable sources that if we look back through who put those non-notable sources there.... in the history of wikipedia, etc. --Buridan (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:RS. LiteralKa (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have, thanks, i just find that things like slashdot are reliable sources, and I know the gentleman who ran the other major source writes for various newswires and is a professional journalist, or at least was at the time. The sources that are there are wp:rs reliable sources, could they be encyclopedia articles... and as such even more reliable.. yes, but they are perfectly reliable as is. I know you have your perspective, but, i'm not sure you should take it to extremes of enforcing that opinion over top of several prior afd's, but a bit of what we call 'judgment' and consensus-building is sometimes called for in these cases, much more so than your perpetual attack and defense. --Buridan (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure who you're referring to as the other major source, but let's discuss Slashdot, I searched it a bit. Keith Dawson published user submissions about Rob Levin's death [46]. Timothy Lord once published a submission by Rob Levin himself [47]. As for freenode, Rob Malda published one submission about a freenode incident [48], and Jeffrey Bates published a submission about an OPN upgrade [49] as well as a submission about Debian channels moving out [50]. There were also some other passing mentions of OPN and freenode, and nothing about PDPC. Even if we take all of the above as notable coverage, I'm not sure it really qualifies as significant coverage of Rob Levin. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • i was referring to chatmag and slashdot primarily, which constitute the majority of removed sources, though there are some others that could also be retained without wp:rs concerns. As for notability, I think that has been already established in prior afd and the policy is that notability does not disappear. the question then is what happens when the documentation or opinion about the notability disappears. 90% of the professors listed here as notable won't be notable 100 years after they die.... then what do we do. We either delete everyone that was once notable, like we are doing in this debate, or removing them. I think it is something very interesting to debate, but I don't think this is the forum, and as such I think we should still keep this as a marker of history. but as a researchers I'm very big on preserving verifiable data.--Buridan (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't believe your assertion that the previous AfDs "established" notability is correct. Each discussion had numerous people indicating in pretty clear terms that they didn't see how the notability was demonstrated, and in fact the one that had happened while he was alive had resulted in the deletion of the article, and not just because Rob had requested it himself. The thing is, we need to apply the same criteria on him as we do on all the old professors. The gist of it is - if people had *ever* written a modicum of secondary sources about him, then that supports a Wikipedia article about him. It doesn't matter if they were written while he was alive, when he died, or 100 years after he died. Right now, there's a single such The Register article listed. That's the whole point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • but there was much more a week ago, and they were perfectly fine sources. There were over 10 sources about his life and work. Yes, in the past, some people disagreed about notability, but he passed notability 2 times and they were all arguments about notability. We will in 100 years be able to strip most bio articles of content based on lost sources I'm betting. That's how history works. If we put the sources back in, or just revert the article to the last article version that passed afd on notability, it should be fine. My argument is that 2 fold here, to reiterate. 1. he is notable and we have had in the past verifiable sources toward that effect and 2. that he is notable because prior arguments about his notability, while some disagreed, the consensus, several times was that he is notable. Following from the idea that notability does not disappear, just because someone edits the article, or time passes, then a once notable article subject is still notable. --Buridan (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • They weren't perfectly fine sources. There was a blog about IRC "news" and a slashdot story that referenced IRC logs. That fails WP:RS, hard. LiteralKa (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • chatmag wasn't a blog, we had this discussion above. it was the journalists website. it was meant to be what was... in the day an electronic magazine, that never found funding. --Buridan (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "Welcome to Chatmag.com, the leading Internet Directory and assistance site devoted to Internet Chat." -- Uh, yeah. It's a blog. LiteralKa (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • assumptions are awesome aren't they... they make you think you know.--Buridan (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Eauhomme and Buridan. Bellagio99 (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as involved with at least one notable organization/project (freenode) and also cited as involved in newsworthy controversy. Per Reg article, he's apparently got some personal independent notability besides just some guy involved with freenode (i.e., it's not just inherited). I'm troubled by deletion of some of the content and blanket claims that certain sites are completely non-reliable, even for simple factual statements. For example, archive.org isn't responding for me right now, but do we really not trust http://lilo.freenode.net to be a viable source for freenode.net's main figurehead's death-date? Baby, bathwater, etc. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm mainly troubled by the fact that he apparently wasn't notable enough for anyone but bloggers to comment on when he died. LiteralKa (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vespas[edit]

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

Band that released one EP on a minor independent label. I have rejected speedy deletion based on the courier article on the cancer care fundraiser, but I don't think that's enough for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has now been edited to include notability criteria:
Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Had there first EP 'higher' was no.1 on Play.com's chart , this is national(uk) and international website.

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city.

They also were in the City Sounds competition which got them coverage in the Evening Times Newspaper. After coverage in this paper the local papers wanted a piece of The Vespas, and the Coatbridge & Airdrie Advertiser printed stories as well as the courier in Dundee. see also coatbridge music scene in article. Furthermore evening times (non-trivial national paper).

Has won or placed in a major music competition.

stpatricks day battle of the bands this is the 4th largest festival of its kind in the world. (see wiki article St Patricks Day Festival, also UK2USA battle of the bands

Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

L107 radio play competition and uk2usa final broadcast on sky propeller 195 I have noted 4 points which are covered, also the a lot of charity work that is done by the band not covered by criteria is notable in itself.

I therefore seek to remove the deletion banner following feedback.

The article is now referenced Craigster92(talk) 15:07, 11 March 2011 (GMT)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commented on Craigsters talkpage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Martijn said on your talk page. The discussion needs to run a full seven days from the date on listing, which is today. The discussion effectively never started before now, since the debate was not listed and thus could not get full community input. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In lights of newly added references. Is the subject of multiple articles from independent sources with editorial review at the Coatbridge & Airdrie Advertiser. I still think it's prudent to let AfD run its course, especially since it was originally tagged for speedy deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Martijn, there are more refs now and I've reformated some of them to be citations rather than external links. Robman94 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could Admin Please close the AfD discussion time is over has been two weeks now Craigster92 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete.... no substantial third party coverage, most refs are mentions only. Locally notable at best. Hairhorn (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Local notibility is criterian for keeping(see above) 188.222.46.181 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, being "most prominent of the local scene of a city" as it says above, is nowhere near the same as being "locally notable", sorry. I also said locally notable at best, I am not even convinced they are locally notable. Hairhorn (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep without prejudice to 2nd afd in future if no improvement.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could an Admin please close discussion this article has been AfD since the 26th February it was incorrectly posted and reposted on the 8th of march, that means the article has been in AfD for 3 weeks -- Craigster92 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD was only completed March 8, it's only been 9 days, which is not an unusually long time for an AFD with so few votes, although it should have either been closed or relisted by now. Hairhorn (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by socks. Notability is not an issue here. (non-admin closure) -- DQ (t) (e) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Emet[edit]

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

Delete - Does not meet notability standards Humanistic Ron (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. Nominated by socks. Already leading towards consensus. (non-admin closure) -- DQ (t) (e) 20:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Temple[edit]

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

Delete - Article not needed because information already at Humanistic Judaism Humanistic Ron (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although the article is currently skimpy, this congregation is notable as the first secular humanist Jewish congregation, and covered as such as many books and news sources.[51][52]. (A few examples:[53][54][55]) This is not the same topic as Humanistic Judaism any more than Congregation Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim is the same as Reform Judaism (North America).--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources provided by Arxiloxos does demonstrate enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. What concerns me more is the nom, an account created less than 5 days ago, has been concentrating on deleting Humanistic Judaism ‎related content with already 3 AfDs on the topic. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. Non-admin closure. Nominated by a sock, consensus already going to keep. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Humanistic Judaism[edit]

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

Delete - Article not needed because information already at Humanistic Judaism Humanistic Ron (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Humanistic Judaism. A possible search term. As the nominator says, all the info is at there. It is not so large an article as to need splitting. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, without prejudice to possible merge and redirect. The Society is certainly notable (hundreds of hits at Google Books[56], hundreds more at Google News[57]), so there's no reason to delete the edit history of this article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator cut-and-pasted content from this article into the other without attribution while also removing multiple paragraphs of information from Humanistic Judaism. Rmhermen (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Additionally, the editor has a history of proposing for deletion articles about progressive Jewish organizations. See the archive of the investigations for more info. SeparateWays (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Antwerpen Syngoge has also been blocked as a sockpuppet. Rmhermen (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As noted by Arxiloxos, notability shouldn't be an issue; there are plenty of references about the Society for Humanistic Judaism. I think merging this with the article on Humanistic Judaism doesn't make sense. Humanistic Judaism is a philosophy; the Society for Humanistic Judaisim is an organization. The categories of the two articles are different. For analogies, see the articles for Conservative Judaism and United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, or Reform Judaism and World Union for Progressive Judaism. SeparateWays (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Syring[edit]

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

Fails notability, no significant coverage other than one event WP:NTEMP. A lone individual who committed one hate crime - threatening employees of an Arab American group - that landed him in jail for a few months. The lead makes the event sound more significant by mentioning the 2006 Lebanon war, but the calls and emails were made by Syring from his home in the Washington DC area to the Washington DC office of the group. Contrary to prior AfD discussion, at the time Syring made the threats, he was no longer an employee of the US government; he was a retired guy who never made it to the level of Ambassador. Prior AfD discussion (which was 3 years ago), also concerned whether it was too early to determine whether this would be a significant story/person because there had been no trial yet. There has now been a plea agreement, and he served his time. The present references section also shows the lack of notability now. The live and dead links all pertain to the one event, and to establishing he was once a US government employee. The lack of WP categories also shows his lack of notability - they consist of year of birth, where he was born, where he went to school - and that is it. I do not believe in minimizing the importance of such crimes, but Wikipedia should not be used to memorialize criminals that the legitimate media correctly considers to be insignificant. But the most important consideration here is that time has shown this person is not WP:NOTABLE as defined by WP guidelines. KeptSouth (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - per two previous Afds ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nominator writes at length, and yet covers only a multitude of points that all are leaning in the general direction of deletion, none of which actually constitute a good reason for deleting. The one pertinent point, NTEMP, actually says the opposite of what the nom believes it does; "Notability is NOT temporary" (my caps) Anarchangel (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Syring was never notable, and is not now. Previous AfD discussion was based on the possibility of a forthcoming felony trial which never happened (he pled to a misdemeanor), and the mistaken assumption he was working for the state dept at the time. KeptSouth (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, Anarchangel, let me add WP:1E, therefore, not notable. In addition, the event itself is not notable. The fact that there were 2 previous AfD's required a long nomination, imo, to rebut some of the arguments there that later proved to be untrue. KeptSouth (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Third Afd. Its time to get the message I think,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nomination mistakes the facts; Syring was an employee of the State Department at the time he made his threats. He had submitted his resignation prior to making the threatening phone calls, but was a State Department employee for about a year after the calls were made. Studerby (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William John Peacock[edit]

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

Non-notable "Information Systems Specialist". Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for people. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I found this on NPP. He may be notable, but = it certainly needs sources. I've asked the editor for them,. I would have considered it better practice to wait until he's had a chance to add them. DGG ( talk ) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd indicated as such in your edit summary, instead of removing the speedy tag without mention, I might well have waited a while. However for bios of living people with English-language names, I'm generally of the opinion that if I can't find suitable sources myself, then there are no suitable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have somewhat less self-confidence, and never make that assumption, unless it's in a field where I have what I know are totally comprehensive search facilities--and even then, I've made errors. Nor did you say in your edit summary that you had searched. We neither of us communicated optimally, but AfD is the right way to get others to help. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPIP, promotional and no 3rd party sources, and nothing in the article indicates to me that he is notable. Successful at his profession, but not WP:Notable - KeptSouth (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Prolix career history of non-notable info-tech person. No sources, no GS citations, etc. WP:SPA nature of creating account Wjp27947, coupled with the user-name, strongly suggests this is little more than a vanity page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. No third-party reliable sources are included (nor can be found in Google news) to substantiate any of this or attest to his notability per WP:GNG. (I found this through the academic deletion sorting page but he doesn't really appear to be an academic so WP:PROF is even farther out of reach.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Profile on a consultancy site suggests he's better known just as "John Peacock", without the William. PamD (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even then, still can't find anything on this particular individual (though there is material on lots of other "John Peacocks", some of whom are apparently notable). Would that we could count web-sites like the one you describe above as a source, but they're basically ephemeral and unauthoritative. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rais Mohammed Khan[edit]

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

Subject appears to lack "signficant independent coverage" in reliable sources and as such is not notable under the general notability guidelines. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia was created by a large number of people and their vision is reflected in our policies. Being a "real person" or a detainee does not grant notability. This BLP fails WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7, under what policy do you claim the subject of this Afd is notable? Anotherclown (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject has been ascribed notability because he was mentioned in a Human Rights report. This is not nearly enough to meet the requriements for notability. The subject has clearly not been the subect of secondary source coverage. Being a Detainee, as has been explained on numerous occassions, does not make one notable, nor does being a "real person". --Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best he was notable for a single event, but in fact he isn't even notable for that. --Bejnar (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The discussion gets side tracked a few times and no consensus emerges. It doesn't appear that relisting will help.Kubigula (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nussli Group[edit]

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

Not notable (WP:CORP). All references but one are the company's own website. Can't find independent sources to establish notability. LordPistachio talk 09:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing nomination. There were references to the group in Vancouver media when the build Empire Field. The fact that they are building mega-structures makes them notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Walter, could you explain what you mean by "removing nomination"? Are you arguing for a speedy keep? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the nomination on the page. It's going to fail so why bother. I see it's been restored and additional citations have been added. May we close this waste of electrons now? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why you don't want to make your argument for keep and allow the AfD to proceed as usual? There is no harm in allowing the discussion to take place is there? As it stands it does not meet any of the of the criteria for a speedy keep and therefore should remain open for additional input unless the nominator chooses to withdraw it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have put several references from independet sources. Nussli Group is already a Wiki Site in German - has a long history as a big player in major events like the Olympic Winter Games // FIFA World Cup // Indy 500 Mile Race // FIS // etc. and there are no information about this company in wikipedia. Why? --DanielaGreter (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have restored the nomination. Walter. Dude. Now, I know that you know that we don't remove AFD notices from articles. Right? ;) If you oppose the article's deletion for whatever reason, state those reasons here in the discussion so that others may weigh in with their recommendations. Removing the template from the article won't stop the article from being nominated, nor will it stop the discussion from taking place. If there were references to the group in the Vancouver media that support notability, simply add them to the article or provide links on this here page. While significance or importance is indicated in the article, this does not equate to notability. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. And honestly, at this point, the article is clearly lacking. This is the thang that makes a company notable. Best regards, Cind.amuse 17:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agree with Cindamuse; if the nomination is made in good faith, no one should unilaterally decide it has no merit. If the company is as clearly notable as Walter has suggested then it will become apparent in the discussion and the article will be kept. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just put a few references (US Open / Indy 500 / 2010 World Expo Shanghai / Vancouver Winter Games) to the link. Does it work / is accepted with this external references? Thank you for your efforts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielaGreter (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references added look like some combination of trivial mentions and press releases. I'm wondering wether you work for this company, since your edit history deals solely with this and related articles. If so, you should look at WP:Conflict of interest. --LordPistachio talk 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, but your comment is really naughty! I follow the same interests as you: to extend the Wikipedia Website! --DanielaGreter (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll take exception with labeling the nominator's comment above "naughty". It appears that User:DanielaGreter has created German wiki and English wiki articles on this subject. It appears neither page had the requisite independent sourcing to pass notability, using only the subject's website. It appears one user attempted to bypass this AfD, deleting the template, assuming a keep outcome. That action poisoned this conversation. All this seems naughty. At some point, sources were added. I'd suggest everybody look at this one source: http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=35905. This website purports to be about the subject of "The Business of the Olympics". The article linked suggests the subject business won an international industry gold medal in one category for performing services necessary to the successful completion of the 2010 World Cup events in South Africa. If true I believe this indicates significance and importance inside a pretty small group of impressive vendors. COI aside, I assert that while it does appear these pages were written as promotion, I'm seeing some notability. I'll bet better sourcing can be found in German architectural periodicals. IMHO lacking sourcing the German page go up for deletion discussion as well. BusterD (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears the website publishes press releases, but since the award notice comes from the international industry org, and not the company, this counts as more than a mere mention. This link: http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=26461 suggests that the subject got a three year exclusive deal with FIS. That seems pretty important to me. I'm still not there, but I'm leaning keep, in spite of the naughtiness. BusterD (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment take the personal discussion elsewhere. This is a discussion about the merits of inclusion for the article. The ad hominem attack aimed at the editor suggesting that this may be an employee of the company in question and suggestions that there are articles on two different language Wikipedia articles are also not at issue. What is at issue is whether the company is notable and should be included on Wikiepdia, which it appears is the case, and if that information is reflected in the article so that notability can be verified, which it appears is also the case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The company is an international contractor. As such it sometimes works on notable projects (stadia etc.) and receives a press mention for doing so. But I could find no coverage about the company itself, only the fact that it works on notable projects, and notability is not inherited. The Wikipedia article itself seems to exist primarily as a sales vehicle; is it really necessary to list all the company's products TWICE, once in the article and once in the infobox? --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Reviewing coverage in German language media, I get a mention in the NZZ as the "worldwide leader for temporary constructions" [58], substantial coverage about allegedly poor-quality goods delivered by Nussli to India [59], and apparently substantial coverage in the NZZ sunday magazine (Google snippet view). This in aggregate should just about meet minimal notability requirements. Nonetheless I am not opposed to a deletion because the article was apparently written by the firm's person responsible for marketing, in disregard of WP:COI. It might be better to wait until a disinterested party writes an article. Sandstein  06:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Compromise Keep if the negative coverage listed above is included in the article[60], as this appears to be the most notable event that has gained independent coverage, and this would allay any fears that this is just marketing spiel. Bennydigital (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 15:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonopuncture[edit]

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

Article does not appear to have any reliable sources. Only reference is a personal and commercial site touting the benefits of sonopuncture. Hasteur (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC) *DELETE - The only source is the private business page of a person who apparently invented this pseudoscience, which is both NRS and ADVERT. The whole article is NRS and ADVERT PPdd (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unrelated to deletion debate
Please do not blank the article while it is being discussed. The purpose of the procedure is to debate it on merits. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Do you know why my original nomination to AfD of sonopuncture did not show on the list? Also why did my nominations to AfD for Accupressure and Accupuncture point did not show? PPdd (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has been on my rewrite to do list for an age, but the sources really just do not cut it. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty enough Google book[61] and Scholar[62] results to demonstrate some notability. First Light (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has adequate sources. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - CFORK for Acupuncture. All the info is already in the acupuncture article. PPdd (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Acupuncture. This certainly deserves mention, but really only needs to be discussed in this section, which already has started to cover it fairly well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section was started by an improper cut and paste copy of the article in question, violating copyright by failing to give proper attribution of the authorship of the content. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, a proper cut and paste merge should be done to give attribution. It still fite better there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable from sources, particularly those in article along with books and journals. The article should and can be expanded to be more than its acupuncture subsection. If it can't, it can always be redirected outside this AfD.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to improve the article. The AfD isn't based on what the article "could be" but what it is. At this point I'm in favor of a merge & redirect as this does explain the concept better but is extremely dependent on acupuncture topic and would fit quite niceley in it's length and subspecialization. Hasteur (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not really about notability, which no one seems to be contesting. Its about CFORK, and all the content is in the acupuncture article, which is not much. Also, without the context provided in the acupuncture article, this article makes little sense. To include that content would be pure CFORK. There is really not much that can go in the article that is not already in acupuncture. PPdd (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is for discussing the deletion of an article. Please see Help:Merging#Proposing a merger for information on how to open a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 15:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the Family Canada[edit]

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

PROD contested, with the user citing the number of Google hits the group gets. Google hits, however, do not equate to significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG: most of the hits are from articles in which a spokesperson from the group comments on a social issue (this is not coverage of the group - news sources frequently get a quote from either side) or in which a possibly notable person's association with the group is mentioned (notability is not inherited). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep article needs more sources, but it is a significant organization as at least two of its former officers are serving in the national government, it has recently completed a facility with room for over 100 staff, and has apparently a strong agenda to include Christian values in legislation, just like the American branch. These facts alone are likely to generate continuing coverage in RS, and continuing notability. Sources regarding the activities of the org aren't too hard to find. Here are a few: [63], [64], [65], [66] -KeptSouth (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the sort of trivial coverage I'm talking about in my nomination. "This candidate is associated with FotF" or "FotF has an opinion on this event." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - By all accounts this organization seems to be very active in Canadian social issues, so it is independently notable without having to inherit any notability from its American counterpart. The diff KeptSouth provided linking to the New York Times was not simply a token right-wing quotation; it was evidence that the organization was actively involved in the legal process in trying to keep spanking legal in Canada. Kansan (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help find sources that are about the group? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at work at the moment so it might be this afternoon (US time), but I'll try to do so. Kansan (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took a look at this, and to correct myself, the diff was about same-sex couples and alimony rights, not spanking. The other three sources KeepSouth provided were opinion sources so not particularly useful here. I typed the organization's name into Google Scholar and found evidence that the organization provided funding to some research in the 1990s, but not having access to the full publication beyond the search snippet, I couldn't elaborate further, and searches along that line weren't helpful.
By the way, the intro implies that this is separate from the main US group, but I found an article from 2009 about James Dobson (founder of the US counterpart, of course) that describes FOFT Canada as "his Focus on the Family Canada": [67] Kansan (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should explore the idea of a merge? (Thanks for your work, by the way.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do lean in that direction, but ideally I'd like to find something that further clarifies the two group's relationship, especially because some of the sources indicate that the Canada group has a "head" of its own. I agree that keeping things in one article seems to be best by this point, as the sources found aren't as thoroughly about the subject as ideal for a Wikipedia article. Kansan (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that if we merged, we wouldn't have to bring everything over, since the group essentially deals with the same issues as the American counterpart. Kansan (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources I cited were just what came up rather quickly - they were not intended to be definitive, be-all-end-all examples. Irrespective of your characterizations of the particular examples, it is nonetheless true that the group has significant coverage and meets the threshold test of notability. - KeptSouth (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, though, can you find some of it? It gets a lot of Google hits, but like I said, "here's a quote from the group on an issue" and "candidate is associated with this group" are not coverage. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourcing can be improved through normal editing procedures, the political importance of Focus on the Family seems axiomatic and a low bar for inclusion of organizational histories for its affiliates outside America seems prudent. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLUB would seem to contradict that. Can you help find significant sources on the Canadian affiliate specifically? Otherwise, perhaps the affiliates could be mentioned in the main article (it wouldn't quite be a merge because there isn't really any sourced content here). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Current sourcing (and common sense, for that matter) demonstrates notability. Note that since nominator appears to be proposing a merger, this is yet another "Why are we here?" AfD. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was proposing a delete, but Kansan found a source that described this group as part of FotF rather than as an affiliate of FotF. Your comment about current sourcing demonstrating notability, however, is rather silly, as out of nine refs, six are primary sources and three are passing mentions.
Perhaps someone who knows the Canadian legal system can explain whether being an intervenor in a notable case confers notability? To make an analogy with the U.S. legal system, is it like being primary counsel (notable) or like filing an amicus brief (non-notable)? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be unique to the Canadian legal system and more akin to filing amicus briefs. Intervention can occur without the consent of either party based on this page: [[68]]. At this point in time, the citations for a good article are clearly just not there so I change my vote to merge to Focus on the Family. Kansan (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigDom 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Rangers F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable football club playing in non-notable football league without any claims for inclusion. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. This is a low-level amateur club with no apparent claim to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and my original prod nomination. Jared Preston (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. GiantSnowman 13:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable football club. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, not even an article for league. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Roden[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and possibly WP:V. I find zero hits for "Codex Roden" on google. Appears to be the name given to a particular copy of A TREATSIE ON THE LAWS OF NATURE owned by this family. Surely books owned by a notable person aren't notable by themselves, right? Contested PROD, prod removed with following comment: "This book is paticualrily rare due to the original owners and the friendship of the book printer," though that only supports deletion in my mind. See also WP:NOTINHERITED. Ravendrop 05:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork *YES! 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hörður Magnússon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Fails notabilty, has not yet played at level to qualify for Wikipedia article, Juventas Primavera is under-20 developmental team. To explain contesting this was posted on the talk page:

I really cannot understand why this article should be deleted. Hörður is a professional footballer who now plays on loan for Juventus' Primavera team but he is a regular international footballer for Iceland's younger teams and he has played games for his hometown team in the top league in Iceland. He has been closely followed by teams such as Stabæk, Everton, Sunderland, AZ Alkmaar, Lyon, Juventus and I could go on. I propose these guidelines you have for page deletion be changed, please! --Benni1972 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate (from your guidelines): "To be clear, football (soccer) athletes are not eligible for a Wikipedia page until they have done one of:

  • had an on-field appearance for their adult national team
  • had an on-field appearance for an adult professional team competing in the highest league in their nation

--Benni1972 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not sufficient for notability. WP:NSPORT explicitly states that youth international caps do not confer notability, and that to achieve notability a player must play in a fully professional league, not a national top league. The Icelandic first division is not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - This is same person who's article was previously deleted twice by afd, here and here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the deleted content is significantly different from what was deleted both times before, so it's not G4-eligible. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've no idea where Benni1972 is getting his "guidelines" from, because this guy quite clearly fails WP:NFTOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The closest this player has come to meeting guidelines is his 6 appearances for Fram, which is in a top national league, but not a fully professional one. Therefore, he fails our sports notability threshold at this time. If the previous name Hörður Björgvin Magnússon was salted, then this name should be too. Studerby (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK lads keep your guidelines and do what you want to do. I'll delete my uploaded pictures and won't ever write on here again. F**k off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benni1972 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It appears we have a cyber-flounce. I haven't seen one of them for a while. Anyway, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate if he makes an appearance in a fully professional league or plays in a senior international match. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Re: Hasteur's comment below, I don't think a snowball would last even three hours in Hell. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redneck-Asian[edit]

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

Contested Prod. "Redneck" is not a scientific classification of race. "Asian" is too general. Article overall does not support a world view.

Another editor says: Complete original research, no references, borderline attack. I concur. Phearson (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this an attack on anybody. I have several friends who call themselves redneck-asians because of some of the things i mentioned in the article. It is completley harmless. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Asian people, rednecks and anyone from a different culture or country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.190 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Complete, utter OR. No question. Kansan (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are some, but the concept has not gained the notability needed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a seemingly non-notable stereotype, and the article is full of unreferenced speculation. We could make an infinite number of similarly titled articles (for example, Redneck-African American, Redneck-Mexican, Redneck-Canadian, etc, Redneck-German, etc), but they would be similarly non-notable and non-encyclopedic. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obiously not to be taken seriously. Nothing racist about it. 69.85.217.190 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not to be taken seriously. That in itself is a reason to delete. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, being half Asian, I would be considered a "redneck-Asian." The article doesn't offend me, but it still isn't encyclopedic. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's why I refused its attack-CSD Phearson (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made-up term with no currency; I'm the one who made the "borderline attack" comment. This kind of article is often made as a joke, not always maliciously, to make fun of someone, and given the reference to a specific place, it presumably has a target in mind. In any case, not a serious article. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and close debate per WP:SNOW. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and close per WP:SNOW.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should we go to Jews and list stereotypes there? This is a racist article, which inhibits progress for civilisation. Meanwhile, there are no references, and if this is a joke article, that is a reason to delete. 43?9enter (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk. Get rid of it--Hokeman (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow. Close this puppy, y'all. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obiously not to be taken seriously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing but WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Violates WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:NEO on the basic Delete. Obviously a HOAX and therefore qualifies for CSD:G3. Sidebar note: SNOWing a delete discussion in less than 3 hours is typically not a valid reasoning. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Maria Filotti[edit]

The result was keep. It may be that this article was nominated in bad faith, but that is not relevant unless the article is renominated for deletion. This article does need work, however. -- llywrch (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Filotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article does not have verifiable references. The only reference indicated is a dead link. Afil (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That's not a rationale for deletion, unless you're saying the entire article is factually inaccurate. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD nomination is a perfect example of why we have a procedure that is supposed to be followed before nominating an article for deletion. This simple procedure can be found at WP:BEFORE Point #4. It reads, "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." I had never heard of Maria Filotti before running across this AfD. I entered her name into Google Books, and 30 seconds later, I knew for sure that she was notable. Just take a look at the mentions in the very first book that comes up: An Abridged history of Romanian theatre, by Simion Alterescu which describes her as among the "prestigious actors of the great realistic school" and called her the "directress" of a theater "that made an important contribution to transmitting the experience from one generation to the next." If the nominator had done what I had done, then that editor could simply have added that source to the article, and several others readily available, and saved us all some time and trouble.Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the nominator may possibly have a conflict of interest regarding people named "Filotti". See their user page for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is some misunderstanding of how things work here on Wikipedia. Maria Filotti is a notable personality of Romanian theatre. The theatre in Brăila is called after her - Maria Filotti Theatre [69]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 04:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable per Vejvančický, though I'll admit the article doesn't exactly assert notability very clearly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - for an actress dead over 50 years, it's telling that the press is still writing articles about her life. I propose closing this pointy nomination: sure, the nominator is miffed that we've eliminated non-notable Filottis from the encyclopedia, like Victor Filotti and Liviu Filotti, but Maria is one of the few whose notability is immediately obvious, and we need not spend any more time on this. - Biruitorul Talk 14:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly aware that subject is notable. I am not miffed at anything, I just wanted to show in this case compliance with WP:BEFORE has been invoked. However this was never done for the articles proposed for deletion by User:Biruitorul. I am not even disputing at this point the notability of the other articles. I simply think that if discussions are carried out in good faith, then the WP:BEFORE steps should be carried out and that double standards should be eliminated. In the previous proposals, the arguments were only that the references indicated were insufficient. So much for the fairness of the process. Afil (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that none of the other Filottis with entries up for deletion (or since deleted) qualifies as BEFORE, simply because they are not mentioned in reliable sources (unless we really stretch the definition to include all sorts of booklets, and even these are in remarkably short supply). The case has been made both individually and collectively (beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ligia Filotti), and I personally took pains to explain this to Afil in clear and accessible terms. Claim debunked, let's move on. Dahn (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who speaks both English and Romanian, I can tell you that the corresponding article on Romanian wikipedia is similarly riddled with sourcing issues etc. Indeed, what is required is for both mono- and bilingual editors to look into the sources, write a proper article from them, and not simply translate a rant that has been posted elsewhere. Dahn (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some additions to the article. Perhaps those who speak Romanian can copy edit the article, and also Maria Filotti Theatre. I made some minor changes there too. Cullen328 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Reliable sources have been found. SilkTork *YES! 01:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naman Y. Goyal[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Winner of a prize at a minor film festival. A google search gives only hits in Linkedln, Facebook and a trivial hit in IMDB. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


List of articles on Naman Y. Goyal in different Indian newspapers -

  • 1) Goyal, Indian Boyle? - Times of India, Delhi, 20 dec 2010 (Right hand side Bottom Corner - CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE

File:Times of india delhi 20Dec2010.pdf

  • 2) Jaipur boy's Hollywood dream comes true - Times of india jaipur edition on dec20,2010 (Left hand side Middle Corner - CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE)

File: Times of India Jaipur 20dec2010 page3 jaipur edition.pdf

  • 3) Hollywood Bound - Times of India, Jaipur 30th august 2010

File:Times of India Jaipur Aug30 2010.jpg

  • 4) "An affair with New York hit a hit at film fest" - TNN Jaipur international film festival coverage in TNN

File:Jaipur International film festival news TNN.png

  • 5) "Keeping it short" - Dna After hrs dec 3 2010 (Right hand side column TOP NEWS Click to Enlarge)

File: DNA after hrs news coverage of dec 3 2010.pdf

  • 5) "The issue of right or wrong" - Hindustan times 29th march2007 (News coverage of screening of Other than right or wrong"

File:Hindustan times 29th march2007.jpg

  • 6) " Film Production Engineering" - Rajasthan plus 9th march 2007 (News Coverage of music launch of "Other than right or wrong" by famous bollywood singer "Vinod Rathod") - CLICK TO ENLARGE

File :Rajasthan plus March 9 2007.jpg

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigDom 19:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Woodhead[edit]

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

Vanity page with no reliable sources with conflict of interest issues. Keithdunwoody (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity bio, complete with link to "Family Website." Carrite (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge the Wizardry series was a pretty influential one at the time. I feel that video game related articles often tend to suffer from bias toward the latest releases, if he was the chief designer of one of today's popular AAA RPG titles i don't think his notability would be questioned. Possibly merge into the article on the company that made the Wizardry games instead if his more recent stuff is not considered notable.Helixdq (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Actually, notability of a bunch of other AAA title designers is being questioned. For example, Drew Karpyshyn's page is tagged for notability -- the designer of a bunch of BioWare's recent titles including Baldur's Gate 2 and Mass Effect. Several other game designers I looked up either don't have Wikipedia pages, or they're tagged for notability. Keithdunwoody (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity bio. Merge (as suggested above) is a possibility, though it's unclear what material if any might be suitable for such a merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A conflict of interest is no grounds for deletion, and I don't understand why you beleive he fails point 3 of WP:CREATIVE. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context - While I am the subject of this page, and am therefore biased, I believe you should be aware that I am currently standing for re-election to the Eve Online Council of Stellar Management, and am the target of a rather vigorous negative PR campaign by a group within the game known as the Goons. One of their complaints is that I was the original author of this page back in 2004. At the time, I was a new wikipedia user, and did not know the rule against this; the only reason I added the page was because there was a link on my name in the article about Wizardry and when I clicked on it, I was invited to create an entry. You should also note that the page has been vandalized twice in the last few days. -- Robert Woodhead —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep COI is Ad hominem without proof of POV or other wrongdoing. RW could have an article at WP for co-founding AnimEigo alone, and searching in Google News for his name plus Animeigo gets 17 hits, mostly from Anime News Network. His name plus Wizardry is even better; 14 hits from the Montreal Gazette, Eugene Register-Guard, St. Petersburg Times, Tampa Tribune, Evening News, Times-News, Daily Record, and 3 from the game developers' site Gamasutra (this and one other),
It seems to me that the multi-talented suffer from a lack of focus on any one of their achievements alone, and WP is most certainly doing something wrong if it does not allow -wide- influence to be treated in the same way as deep influence. Anarchangel (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lian padukan[edit]

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

A non martial art without any reliable sources to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This article clearly needs to be sourced and improved. However, my search showed there appears to be enough out there that this article could be salvaged (although not by me). Astudent0 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A Google search found a fair number of hits, but I had trouble trying to determine if any of them qualified as reliable sources. However, some of them seemed like they might be independent so, for now, I'm willing to keep this article around in the hope that an interested party improves it. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added links to two articles from the Straits times a reliable source(they could be incorporated better) Francis Bond (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good delete rationale coupled with lack of reliable sources. Interview tapes are common, though, as Michig indicates, a mention of this promotional aid in the Gorillaz (album) article would be appropriate if it can be reliably sourced. SilkTork *YES! 01:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Apex Tapes[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile despite the last Afd deciding otherwise. It was a promo released to the press, nothing notable about that, whoever the artiste is. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no coverage about this promotional CD in reliable sources. From the last AFD, there was a a claim to keep for its rarity but rarity is not an inclusion criterion and the claim that it "will almost certainly be a collector's item" is speculative, and not supported with any sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo-only releases aren't notable even if the band itself is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the album article if it can be sourced properly.--Michig (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This article was previously deleted. The software exists, however Wikipedia doea not store information indiscriminately, we have notability guidelines to indicate those topics that reliable sources have indicated are sufficently interesting for the general reader. This topic does not meet our inclusion guidelines. SilkTork *YES! 00:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qpst[edit]

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

Probably doesn't meed the general notability guideline Dawnseeker2000 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep   As noted on the page, this is an often discussed program. The references are not good and there should be better ones. The significance of this program is well established by the thousands of discussions on phone forums. The article was viewed 1200 times in February: http://stats.grok.se/en/201102/Qpst   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not finding sources to support notability here, though there are some indications that notability is present, as Daniel Cardenas notes. Pageviews are not one of those indicators, unfortunately, but I'm seeing enough mentions here and there to suggest some interest in the software. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not seeing the requisite substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about a guideline? What do you think the guideline would say about a topic that shows up 10,000 times in discussion forums? That sounds very substantial to me. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that discussion forums are absolutely never reliable sources. Try again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A reliable source of what? 100K+ google web hits definitely suggests it is a notable item. To break that down further, you have links for downloading of the software at various file shares, various youtube videos discussing how to use the software, already discussed tons of forum discussions, and wikipedia page views that show notability of topic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork *YES! 00:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Segal[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No reliable google hits, no some minor google books results, no indication of notability. Sole source on the page is an autobiographical book written by the subject of the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I added some sources found in some psychology books. I wonder if perhaps someone can find studies of the subject in academic journals. --CutOffTies (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even with the sources added by User:CutOffTies, there isn't any assertion of the greater importance of this particular case. I'm open to having my mind changed if anybody can find up with something. Kansan (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are a couple more sources where she's mentioned on her google books listing. In one of the sources, Deepak Chopra apparently mentions her in his footnotes. I don't really understand the subject matter enough to incorporate the sources.. nor is it clear to me whether the coverage of her in the books establishes enough notability one way or the other--CutOffTies (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The part that is interesting is that effects of a brain tumor were thought to be a mystical experience or psychological disorder. Sad that her physician husband or the psychologists and psychiatrists she saw missed this; if they had thought to send her for an MRI, she might still be alive. That aside, she is not notable other than for her book - it is a non-notable book, imo, except for its unwitting description of the effects of her brain tumor. Perhaps a footnote to a description of her book belongs under Brain_tumor#Signs_and_symptoms but otherwise, I think the bio on her should be deleted. -KeptSouth (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment - if she were living it seems like it would be a WP:BLP1E sort of thing. For me it comes down to "something weird happened, it was neat, she wrote a book, then died of a brain tumor". I don't know if bare mentions in other books are enough to pass WP:N, they're not for me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if the current wording was taken as some assertion of notability, there's no there there, much less no sense of self. There's no independent sources at all. It also fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_March_8&oldid=1142637392"