Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 May 28 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Fuentes[edit]

Eli Fuentes (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 subject has published two books with a selfpublishing press and done screenplays for minor short films. Doesn't seem to meet general notability criteria. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage about Eli Fuentes in reliable sources. His two self-published books have not garnered any critical attention. the claim to being a best-selling author is not substantiated in any way with no indication of what best-seller list was used. His cinema work has not garnered him coverage, and I can find no indication of critical reviews or awards that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wasn't able to find any significant coverage of Fuentes or his books, either. Other than this Wikipedia article, the only website saying Fuentes' book was a best-seller is the author's own website, which leads me to believe that it isn't true. Fuentes fails WP:AUTHOR, and, more broadly, WP:BIO. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Emanuel[edit]

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

Unelected political candidate with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as he was never elected and does not meet WP:GNG as he does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a run of the mill minor party/independent political candidate. Never previously elected, and at the moment not even any indication that he's getting close. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Unelected, unnotable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Harold & Kumar[edit]

The result was KEEP. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold & Kumar (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 article contains no information that is not present in each individual article, it is in fact plot repeated twice, once in each film summary and again for each character. It contains only two films and a proposed third and there is not enough information available on the series to warrant an article for an overview concerning it. Like films such as The Hangover, I don't believe the films require a "series" article and should be contained in each individual article with a sequel section as well as merging what little information here is worth salvaging, entirely from the third movie entry. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems harmless enough, almost a disambig for the duo, with more sourced info on the page than just the movies themselves. The characters themselves are notable and sourced, and they are known for more than a single movie. As a stand alone, would seem to pass GNG. While no where as big as Cheech and Chong, in both instances the "team" by itself is notable. It is just a matter of where do we draw the line. In this case WP:N, WP:V are met. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it appears that the third film is in post-production, and I think that three films warrant a film series article. This article just needs some work. Plot summaries and character descriptions should be more succinct. We can have a table of recurring roles, a table of box office figures, and a table of critical reception scores. I would do away with the film infobox, though, since they are clumsy-looking in series articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don't think number of films should be a qualifier for a series article. Does Crank (film) need a series article? Does Tremors (film)? Does Meet the Parents, Hot Shots! or Escape from "Insert place"? I'm not against the films, I like them, but I don't believe they're notable enough that they cannot be contained in their own articles any more than The Hangover is which is a much bigger, notable film. Harold and Kumar is a cult film, or two films and maybe the characters should have an article that discusses their real world notability but other than that I cannot see what this article could ever offer. The individual articles themselves are quite spartan because the real world information for these films is not that high. Unlike the film's characters, heyo. EDIT If the information can be found I do agree with an article for Harold and Kumar the characters. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a film series article at its most basic should be an aggregation of information. The article can serve as an overview of a given set of films. Instead of the readers going to each article, they can go to one. With two films, the benefit is not great, but I think that starting with three films, a series article is more beneficial. You mentioned that the individual articles are spartan, but I disagree that it is because of a lack of information out there. On Metacritic, each film has at least 27 mainstream reviews. I suspect the articles are not very developed because most people aren't interested in the films' backgrounds; the films themselves are their own reward. However, that doesn't mean we should deprive editors of the space to use for potential growth. Regarding the characters, I think they could very well be covered here too because it would make little sense to have an article for each character. We can adjust the scope of this article to be broader and encompass the characters and their films. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have had an article for each character, just a single article for both, neither is relevant without the other and they're never apart so their notability is as a duo rather than individual.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the way we treat series articles in encouraging further development through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a notable series and the article contains good series information that might not be as evident in the individual articles. Eauhomme (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Have you actually read the article? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer One, yes I did. Two, article quality is not generally a deletion criteria. Improve it, don't delete it. Eauhomme (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not referring to the quality, you stated it contained information that might not be as evidence in each film's respective articles. I asked if you read it because it's all plot and OR except for the third film entry which should be in that particular article since the article itself is lacking. I was asking because it doesn't currently contain any good series information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Per the unanimous above keep discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per above. I would have closed this debate myself, but I'm taking a self-imposed wikibreak. This is a notable, even notorious, motion picture series. I thought the first one was terrible, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that an article describing the films, and acting as a dab page, would be a helpful addition to The Project, which is after all read by these film's viewership. Individual issues with the article can be resolved through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hitting yourself[edit]

Stop hitting yourself (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 that notable a phrase. Article is unreferenced, and it is not at all clear how this is an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IP who had removed the speedy replaced it while I was typing this out. I have no prejudice against someone speedying this. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I haven't done an exhaustive amount of research on the topic, but even the Simpsons have covered the phrase with Nelson, more than once. I would find it hard to believe that references can't be found for this "cultural phenomena" that this 46 year old grew up with. I'm not sure what the policy is here, but it would seem there is enough room for topics like this here, as well as similar phrases such as sticks and stones, etc. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is my current !vote, pending someone else having more success than me in finding reliable sources covering this topic in such a fashion that would allow us to give this article encyclopedic content and not just a description of the bullying tactic. I'd contrast this article -- and the coverage I'm seeing of the phrase -- with Have a nice day, which has a surprisingly interesting history and has been studied in various academic disciplines. I don't bring up this superior example to suggest that I simply don't like the article under review here; I bring it up to demonstrate a contrast in the type of sourcing available. I'll be following this AfD -- interested to see how it goes. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ginsengbomb, thank you for mentioning that surprising yet neglected article. I will follow you throughout Wikipedia pleading, begging, and hoping that one day you will have the heart to finish copyediting it. ;) Cunard (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This sounds like the way to go. There are a number of mentions in sources out there, but it's really more appropriate on Wiktionary.[1][2][3][4][5] Nevard (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No references are cited, this is original reserach;
  2. This phrase, if it is actually in common use, is a neologism. 94.197.193.120 (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is so trivial I'm surprised it wasn't deleted straight away. 80.249.48.109 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A ridiculous article, probably created as a joke. Bazonka (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the subject matter is amusing, but far more ridiculous articles exist. That does not mean they are created as a joke. Please remember to assume good faith. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced, no evidence this has ever happened outside of a cartoon. Hairhorn (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't a common phenomenon, rather that there is little in the way of credible sources on it. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is finding sources, granted, but many of us remember being on the giving and/or receiving end of "Stop hitting yourself", usually in good humor. Maybe not in your house, but it is certainly common enough. The NYTimes hasn't written on an article on it lately, but the cartoons are copying real life, not the other way around. That isn't enough for inclusion, obviously, but it is more common than you perhaps think. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's moot whether or not this is as common as I think, particularly since I made no claim one way or the other. Hairhorn (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Dennis Brown - it is verifiable and slightly notable, but not supportable by significant coverage, as least as I can see, but perhaps it will get coverage in the future. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I found this article when randomly looking up the phrase and was pleasantly surprised to see that the page existed. You'd be hard pressed to find someone under a certain age in the UK who doesn't know this phrase. I've also read it being used with the meaning 'stop blaming yourself'/feeling guilty.--Pmcmahon1 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Pmcmahon1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. 131.211.84.85 (talk)
  • Pending at least one source, merge and redirect to List of proverbial phrases.--PinkBull 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A.k.a. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - frankie (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The targets proposed are valid but none here is much better suited to cover cultural phenomenons - frankie (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it is telling that this "phrase" is unlike most of the other terms included in the "English phrases" category to which this article belongs. Most of the other entries are notable maxims or sayings, while "stop hitting yourself" can hardly be considered as such. At most, the phrase might make a useful illustrative example in an article on bullying, but does not merit an article in its own right. It is pretty much doomed to be a stub-length almost dictionary-like definition and not a proper article.Agent 86 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not Urban Dictionary, folks. This one is an easy call. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 21:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McMaster Association of Part-Time Students[edit]

McMaster Association of Part-Time Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of listings and incidental mentions on G, along with the occasional press release, but nothing substantial about organization. TransporterMan (TALK) 21:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Larsen[edit]

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

Academic that does not meet WP:PROF -- certainly not via research, and I don't see sufficient coverage to meet other standards Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but consider mailing a copy to anybody who wants, for possible transfer to the Harry Potter wiki. Anybody who writes an article like "Harry Potter and the Upcoming Venus-Jupiter Conjunction" should probably be documented somewhere, but not necessarily here. RayTalk 14:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had nominated for PROD. Checking criteria 1 through 9 at WP:PROF, I can't find any academic awards or honors, not an elected member of one of the prestigous scholarly associations, not a chair or distinguished professor, no indication of extraordinary impact within the discipline, not an editor, can't find notable impact ourside academia, and not noted for non-academic achievements. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory of staff members at various institutions. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails PROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. Perhaps good content for a résumé or a CCSU bio, but not worthy of Wikipedia inclusion. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The multiple local newspaper stories announcing astronomy events that involve her don't convince me of a pass of WP:GNG, either.—David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet criteria for WP:PROF, really no signifigant contributions or notworthy positions in associations, or institutions. Also, I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Bobby[edit]

Prince Bobby (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; non-notable player who fails WP:GNG, and who has never appeared in a fully-professional league, therefore also failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Please note that the article was created by serial hoaxer and now-banned user Zombie433 (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 20:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Can't find evidence of this person meeting any relevant notability guidelines (assuming he even exists). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as unverified. If it can be verified that he has appeared in the Ghana Premier League, he would meet WP:NSPORT, but as it is he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. He was certainly in Bechem Chelsea's squad for 2008-09[6] but like everyone else here I can't find evidence he's actually played at a fully professional level. The others leagues he's played in aren't fully professional, and there's no evidence he passes the general notability guideline. —BETTIA— talk 09:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Matović[edit]

Dušan Matović (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 Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played for arguably the most notable Lithuanian club and probably in UEFA competition. A Lyga is not fully pro and therefore insufficient to grant notability. All his UEFA competition appearances have been in qualifying, meaning they don't grant notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robot2[edit]

Robot2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant independent anywhere, as far as I can see. Proposed film, the proposal having been announced by a cameraman. There are no independent sources at all. Time for an article if and when it (a) exists, and (b) has received enough attention to establish notability. (PROD was contested by the author.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This one's a no brainer: WP:NFF states "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and the article and refs state that work on the script has not even started. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as a repost per WP:CSD#G4. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elan (IIT Hyderabad)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elan (IIT Hyderabad) (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 article--the third incarnation--seems to be no different from the version speedily deleted on 9 December 2010, and it's certainly no improvement over the version deleted after unanimous AfD consent a month before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elan (IIT Hyderabad)). Drmies (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the same as the deleted version, why start discussion again, G4? --Muhandes (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't identical, but the concerns of the first AfD (i.e. lack of sourcing and independent coverage) were not met. It was also a boderline WP:CSD#G11 spam. Any future recreation of this article must be accompanied by sources and should ideally not be in the main namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus sure did a complete 180 on this one. If someone thinks this can be fixed/revised then let me know and I'll be happy to userfy or incubate this. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of mad scientists[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of mad scientists (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 list violates WP:NOTDIR because it is a list of fictional scientists which may a certain subjective stereotype. There is no clear way to determine whether any individual member of this list can be considered a "mad scientist", and the judgement is often purely subjective and based on ones interpretation of a work. None of the entries are currently cited, and while deletion is not a route to solving problems within the article, the lack of sourcing is a serious problem with the article which must be sorted within a reasonable timeframe if it is to be kept. Anthem 19:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is very subjective, and in theory ought to rely on broad external consensus that every scientist on the list is deemed mad...external consensus which, by its own nature, will be inevitably subjective and open to interpretation. The Nathaniel Hawthorne example -- the second item on the list -- is a perfect illustration of how subjective this list is by its very nature. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or fundamentally re-envision. I'm less concerned about WP:NOTDIR here as the fact that, as it stands, this entire list is a giant collection of original research. A list at this title is probably possible; the core concept is unquestionably notable. At a minimum, that will need clear references to reliable sources, preferably ones that discuss the characters as mad scientists rather than just dropping the phrase. What is at the title currently lacks that for literally every entry. One way or another, we cannot keep this in its current form. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most aren't even scientists at all [7]. Seriously though, as it was said the inclusion criteria is subjective enough that this can't fail OR. We'll have to wait until Rolling Stone makes a top 100 - frankieMR (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename list of fictional scientists If the 'mad' part is a problem then remove it, as well as any trivial entries, citing would then be easy enough. Someoneanother 23:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a a list of fictional scientists at List of fictional scientists and engineers. Anthem 08:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how I missed that, in which case I'm neutral. Someoneanother 00:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and revise the comments about OR seem fundamentally on point. A good list of fictional mad scientists and an article about the fictional archetype of the "mad scientist" and its evolution would both be interesting and encyclopedic articles. This one seems to split the two and ends up doing neither one well. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nomination. The article that falls into what Wikipedia is not, by being a list of loosely associated topics. Most of the characters aren't notable for themselves, relying on listing the notable series in which they appear, and most of these characters aren't notable for being "mad" scientists. The inclusion criteria is subjective and arbitrary and, as pointed out by others, it relies on original research. Jfgslo (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per wel-reasoned nom. --Crusio (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect to List of fictional scientists and engineers. As Anthem and Crusio ably point out, we're not a collection of loosely associated topics. Examples in the "mad scientist" article supported by reliable sources are OK; a list of all fictional scientists, possibly with short and sourced description of each character, is also probably OK. An intrinsically subjective list is not OK. This is great for TV Tropes - not for here. Neutralitytalk 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 doubt this is going to Deletion Review but I think the close is relativelty straightforward. The keep side have produced sources but they appear to be from non-RSs, are passing mentions or are not specifically about the subject. The korean sources in particular have been well analysed and they do not meet RS. This leaves a keep argument based on being head of a theological seminary. The policy on this is clear. The head of of a majot academic institution is notable. An institution with 100 students is not a major institution and none of the keep adherants have shown any consensus elsewhere on wikipedia that refutes this. This leave us with the delete arguments. The primary one being the lack of sourcing,, This is a clear problem for the article. No decent reliable sources have been adduced and its clear that a thorough search for them has taken place. This defaults to delete. I would also note that subguidelines like prof are predicated that their notability criteria actually indicate individuals who will be covered in reliable sources. This essentially means that when a thorough search for sources has drawn a blank then the subguidelines is weakened compared to the main notability guidelines which asserts the need for sources. This is why, in any dispute over the primacy of a reliability guideline GNG always trumps the subguideline. Anyway, the policy based arguments here are the delete votes. Spartaz Humbug! 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Stephen[edit]

Jonathan Stephen (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:ACADEMIC as head of a small seminary, fails WP:BIO absent coverage in third-party sources. (Cited sources are either not third-party or not coverage of Stephen; quoting him in an article about a fellow churchgoer is not coverage of him.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is the head of this [8] Theological Seminary, a professional training school for evangelical ministers. That makes him notable. According to nom, he fails WP:ACADEMIC. That would perhaps depend on how notable you judge the seminary he heads to be. But I find it odd that WP:ACADEMIC Criterion 6 fails to address religious Seminaries. I believe that heading a Seminary makes you notable. Plus there are other secondary sources in the article.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus his book[9]I.Casaubon (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reasons as expressed by I.Casaubon. I would add that the subject's various roles over many years make him a notable figure in British Christianity. The article may need improvement, but it shouldn't be deleted. Sidefall (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user was notified of this nomination through canvassing. bW 22:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No actually this was not canvassing. See WP:CANVASS to learn what "canvassing" actually entails. Fountainviewkid 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The seminary is not a "Major" institution and does not inherently establish notability. bW 22:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unstruke - Except he hasn't. bW 05:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepHe seems notable as the head of a Seminary which also has an article. His books as well. Fountainviewkid 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CANVASSING ALERT: User:I.Casaubon has engaged in canvassing regarding this thread:[10] and [11]. bW 22:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notification's legitimate (these users had indeed edited the article before) and neutral. If I.Casaubon will now notify every other user who has edited the article, not just those whom he thinks will vote to keep it, then we can avoid a canvassing debacle. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the definition of canvassing, Casaubon was not inappropriately canvassing. It says under Appropriate Notification "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion" can be a place of discussion, must as you did over on the wall of another editor.Fountainviewkid 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if the notification had been posted to a WikiProject instead of to the talk pages of individual users, no one would have pointed out that I.C was canvassing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked "show history" and notified two editors , skipping editors who, when I clicked "contribution" had not edited for a long time (years) and those who had only made technical edits, i.e. adding categories. If that is a sin, mea culpa - I htought it was an efficient way to notify editors who were interested in the topic.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I went and read WP:CANVASS. It states: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: * The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." that's what I did. What did I do wrong?I.Casaubon (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)JPL appears also only to have added a category, which is why it comes across as suspicious. It wasn't wrong to notify potentially interested users, but if you notify them selectively, you risk the appearance of impropriety.
As I said to FVK, you did not post at a WikiProject talk page, but rather at user talk pages. A WikiProject talk page would be something like the talk pages for WP:Christianity or WP:Berks. Hope that helps, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASS states that it is appropriate to place a message on the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. that's what I did.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I hope you'll prevent this from going further by notifying other users who have contributed to the article (Emeraude, Chromenano, Coyets, Jaraalbe have made no fewer contributions to the article than JPL and are not inactive) and not a select few. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked down the list. the editors you suggest contacting haven't been around in months, or made purely technical edits. Which is why i didn't contact them the first time I when through the list. why waste the time?I.Casaubon (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true; I only named the ones that made no fewer contributions than the editors you notified (ie. some only added or altered a category, but that's the same thing that JPL, whom you chose to notify, did) and who've been around recently. (But I see that you've notified some of them - thank you.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I confirm that I.Casaubon notified me, although my edit was merely to add a category. Thank you, I.Casaubon. The subject is difficult to google because the surname is often used as a given name. However, I tried and did not find any third party references to the subject. So, I think the subject fails WP:ACADEMIC "because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coyets (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I found several third party references. While we can debate how strong they are, they do exist. Those references describe him as "a noted Evangelical conservative" and list the various organizations he has headed or directed. The sources were varied from science education centers to religious organization websites. Fountainviewkid 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: According to the article on the seminary the subject heads, it has an enrollment of 100, a total that it would be rather far-fetched to suggest qualifies as a "major academic institution" under any circumstances. That Casaubon feels seminaries ought to be automatically defined as "major" institutions is a matter he should take to the WP:ACADEMIC talk page, and win consensus for that POV before using it as a defense at AfD.

    As far as whether the subject is, as Sidefall alleges, a notable figure in British Christianity, a search on Google News UK for "Jonathan Stephen" + "Affinity," the evangelical organization the article states he heads, turns up zero hits.  Ravenswing  11:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did another Google search and found several more articles where he is mentioned as well as in Google Books. He is also mentioned in several places in Google Scholar as an authoritative source. Fountainviewkid 12:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to share those links with us.  Ravenswing  13:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right there are quite a few. One of the first is a book on Google titled "Unlocking the Bible Story: Old Testament 1". He is mentioned by the author for "his insights into the theophanies in the early chapters". The second book mention is "Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution" where is mentioned in a similar vain. The books authors including several prominent evangelicals including John Piper. He is also mentioned in the British Centre for Science Education [12] in relationship to the YEC debate. It quotes he "is a noted evangelical conservative. He is past President of Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), is on the council of reference of Biblical Creation Ministries (as is Stuart Olyott). He also heads up Affinity (formerly the British Evangelical Council), a hard line evangelical organisation (as distinct from the Evangelical Alliance which is seen as more liberal). Affinity has long been linked to FIEC. He is also noted as a presenter at the Preaching Today conference [13].Fountainviewkid 2:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, is this a joke? The mention in "Unlocking the Bible Story" is as part of an acknowledgments section, and the "mention" in Pierced for Our Transgressions is his quote about the book, not anything about him. PreachingToday is obviously not a third-party source if it hired him to speak, and the BCSE mention is trivial - he doesn't inherit notability from his school. You're going to have to do better than that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BCSE mention is NOT trivial. It describes the leadership and organizations he has been involved in beyond his school. While it is true he is mentioned in conjunction with his school, the description goes beyond just the school. For example it says that he "is a noted evangelical conservative". To me "noted" and "notability" are pretty synonymous. Furthermore he is the past President of Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) which has a good sized article here on wikipedia. FIEC has 500 churches representing thousands of members. Also Affinity which he helped head is a major Evangelical organization in the UK. He is on the council of Biblical Creation Ministries as well. As the leader/head of several of these organizations I would argue notability is achieved.Fountainviewkid 18:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BCSE IS trivial. It is a wiki page that can be edited by anyone with an account. Bgwhite (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I didn't even notice the "edit page" link. Good catch. Yeah, that would make it unreliable no matter how much information it contained about him. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity in the UK is much smaller than in the US. I'd guess that many seminaries have around 100 students. It's difficult to relate size to notability. But in any case, my view is that the subject's overall CV makes him notable. Also try searching for his name on the website of Evangelicals Now - you get a good number of hits. Sidefall (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The size of a seminary is no way to measure its importance. Also mocking other people for sincere attempts to positively contribute to wikipedia is an example of violating the policy to assume good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is mocking other people. Articles for Deletion (AfD) is a normal process to weed out articles that maybe non notable. The article may have been created in Good Faith, but that doesn't mean it should automatically be kept. Bgwhite (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a post of with "Wait, is this a joke?" is clearly a case of mocking other people. However the main point is that the size of an institution is no way to measure its importance. Eveyone will agree that Harvard Univeristy is more inportant than Arizona State University, but size does not determine this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very hard to find info on him because of his common name. The BCSE mention is from a Wiki page that anybody with an account can edit, therefore is not a reliable source. President of Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) does not appear to be an important position. It is more of a figurehead position with a director doing the work... similar to many occupation associations. I'm unable to find anything in Google Scholar, so I'd appreciate if Fountainviewkid post the ones he found. All other references, except college bio, are not about him, but have him in passing. So, it comes down to two things, book and principle. He has written a book, but only one non-self-published book. One book does not make you notable. For him being a principle... A principle is not automatically notable. I've seen Jewish and Christian heads of seminaries and schools being deleted. I looked in Category:Bible colleges, seminaries and theological colleges in the United Kingdom to find what makes a "notable" principal in the UK. Vast majority have either written more books and articles (WP:ACADEMIC) or are a Bishop in the Anglican church (Anglican and Catholic Bishops are Notable). Therefore, I cannot find anything to make him notable. Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen was also the director of the FIEC, which as you noted is the one "doing the work". I said head or president but I also meant director. It appears he held all of the various positions at one point or another. FIEC is an important organization. If you look at him in connection with the organization I would argue notability is achieved. I've already posted the mentions about him in books. One was acknowledgements where he was noted for "his insights into the theophanies in the early chapters [of a certain Biblical book]." I would argue his involvement in other organizations makes him notable. Also he has written several significant articles for "Evangelicals Now" a British Evangelical monthly which also has an article on Wikipedia. Furthermore his leadership of "Affinity" (the British Evangelical Council is notable as this article describes [14]) You are right in that his common name makes it hard to find information on him, but it is there. You just have to use key words and know what you're looking for. As someone familiar with the Evangelical world I was able to find this information rather easily. Finally rather than just book and principal I say his leadership of the organizations should also be considered, especially since their part of his main accomplishments.Fountainviewkid 00:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to need your help to find articles in google searches for me as his name makes it difficult. As you are familiar and have found them, could you show me what to search for? Some other things... I can find nowhere he was director of FIEC, just president. Could you find me a reference for this? For the books you have mentioned, I'll quote Roscelese, "The mention in "Unlocking the Bible Story" is as part of an acknowledgments section, and the "mention" in Pierced for Our Transgressions is his quote about the book." Are there any other books I've missed? Don't think the reference you gave for Affinity [15] was one you wanted to show as it puts them in a negative light. I'm not familiar with Affinity or FIEC and how notable they are. Could you explain better to a non-British Evangelical person like me. Bgwhite (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already posted several articles, but if you want I will try and post EVERYTHING that I have found. As for FIEC in the magazine "Evangelicals Now" it quotes "Jonathan Stephen, former President of FIEC and now the Director of Affinity..." [16]. So whether it's FIEC/Affinity/BEC he was the head/director/President. My point is that there is at least one of these organizations which he was the leader of (as in doing the work and being the one in charge). As for the source on Affinity, yes that was the reference I wanted to show. My point is not to advocate or put in any favorable light but to demonstrate notability, which I argue that article does quite well. If you want to learn about FIEC or Affinity you can simply type it into the search here on wikipedia. The article can be found here Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. To learn about Affinity you can also go to wikipedia Affinity (Christian organisation). These organizations are rather notable in the world of British Evangelicalism in that FIEC is made up of over 1300 congregations (churches) and something like 50,000 members. He has also written at least one book titled "Theophany: Close Encounters with the Son of God". Google that book and you will see it listed in pretty much every Christian book center. He also wrote the introduction for the book "Tales of Two Cities: Christianity and Politics" published by Inter-Varsity Press [17]. He has also written for "Evangelical Times" [18] the other famous British Evangelical monthly paper. The publisher can be found here Evangelical Press. He is also listed on the "Spurgeon's College Notable Alumni" found here [19]. As for other articles on Jonathan Stephens, I will simply post several for you to look at. You may have to search for his name in these, but he is there. Some of the links will be random, but I argue they all at some level show notability. [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] (the official magazine of the Wales Presbyterian Church), [32], and [33]. While I know you will say some of these links do not demonstrate notability, if you read closer you will see first, that they describe his position in the organizations and also as an authority, second they show his depth of scholarship, and they show his overall influence in British and even more specifically Welsh Evangelical circles. Based on one of these sources he is in the top 3 most influential Welsh Evangelical leaders. Hopefully that helps provide a bit more information that couldn't previously be found by anyone else. Fountainviewkid 2:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not convinced that we have clear precedents on who is doing the work. If he was both director and president it is not a pertinent question. However the precedent seems to be that those who hold titles like president are more likely to be ruled notable than those who "do the work".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have done "both" at one time or another. I argue the answer to such questions is "all of the above". Fountainviewkid 2:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Several have commented above that his college is not a "major academic institution" and that he is consequently not notable. However, there is now some level of precedent, established mainly by what might be called the "rosh yeshiva" argument (see e.g. recent cases here and here) that even small religious colleges are "major academic institutions". I have argued against this interpretation in the past, but am certainly willing to abide by what seems to be an emerging consensus. Agricola44 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

In the rosh yeshiva debates it seems to have been accepted that "the dean of a college" is notable as a result of holding that position. Is this actually the consensus view on the matter in wikipedia?
It is certainly not a precedent, nor is it a consensus view. For it to be a consensus view there needs to be a unified discussion, such as at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Anyway, a number of articles of college principals have been deleted. See here, here and here. The relevant guideline is WP:Prof#C6. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not appear to have a consensus either way here though there seems to be a trend to keep the article. I have noted a large amount of references which I argue demonstrate notability, such as his heading various British Evangelical organizations, his books, and his published articles in academic and church journals. Also he has been quoted as being influential by the BBC and by other prominent religious leaders. Fountainviewkid 2:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have not claimed the "rosh yeshiva" argument to be established consensus, but rather one that seems to be emerging in the sense that several recent cases are indeed setting some level of precedence. Specifically, it would be a prima facie contradiction to retain such individuals from Jewish religious colleges as notable, while rejecting their counterparts from religious colleges of other persuasions as non-notable. These are the sorts of gaffes that make WP look not only biased, but silly. For the record, I agree in principle with your basic position (I said above I've argued against this in the past). To wit, I said here that "most small religious colleges like HTC are not considered [major academic instutions], for reasons variously including small enrollment, narrow focus of study, lack of significant research or other notable scholarly impact, lack of division-level athletics, lack of national visibility, and so on and so forth". I think the vagueness of "major academic institution" is allowing for ever greater abuse and, consequently, aiding the "Facebook-ization" of WP for academics. I think this will ultimately have to be settled with a refinement to policy and cases like this provide impetus. Subordinating my view to the broader trend I've personally experienced, I'll stay with "keep" on this one, but with obvious reservation. Hopefully, that explains matters. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an extended overview of what I have found. He is the head/director of FIEC as the magazine "Evangelicals Now" quotes... "Jonathan Stephen, former President of FIEC and now the Director of Affinity..." [34].He has also been the head of Affinity/BEC (British Evangelical Council). There was some debate about whcih position (head/director/President) and the answer seem to be "all of the above". My point is that there is at least one of these organizations which he was the leader of (as in doing the work and being the one in charge). If you want to learn about FIEC or Affinity you can simply type it into the search here on wikipedia. The article can be found here Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. To learn about Affinity you can also go to wikipedia Affinity (Christian organisation). These organizations are rather notable in the world of British Evangelicalism in that FIEC is made up of over 1300 congregations (churches) and something like 50,000 members. Stephen has also written at least one book titled "Theophany: Close Encounters with the Son of God". Google that book and you will see it listed in pretty much every Christian book center. He also wrote the introduction for the book "Tales of Two Cities: Christianity and Politics" published by Inter-Varsity Press [35]. He has also written for "Evangelical Times" [36] the other famous British Evangelical monthly paper. The publisher can be found here Evangelical Press. He is also listed on the "Spurgeon's College Notable Alumni" found here [37]. As for other articles on Jonathan Stephens, I will simply post several. You may have to search for his name in these, but he is there. Some of the links will be random, but I argue they all at some level show notability. [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] (the official magazine of the Wales Presbyterian Church), [50], and [51]. While I know some will say these links do not demonstrate notability, if you read closer you will see first, that they describe his position in the organizations and also as an authority, second they show his depth of scholarship, and they show his overall influence in British and even more specifically Welsh Evangelical circles. Based on one of these sources he is in the top 3 most influential Welsh Evangelical leaders. Hopefully that helps provide a bit more information that couldn't previously be found by anyone else. I posted the links to demonstrate that information on his can be found. Fountainviewkid 15:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out the "keep" vote above because you may not vote more than once in the same discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - director of multiple notable organisations, reasonable amount of coverage, borderline meets WP:PROF per his position at the seminary. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lack of third party sourcing or a clear articulation of how the topic meets WP:PROF (head of a small and obscure seminary does not meet any of the criteria). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Typically these obscure theologians have written a dozen obscure books arguing some finer points about interpreting the bible. Stephen seems to have written one. Abductive (reasoning) 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you if Stephen were merely just another "obscure theologian". However, as the President and director of several prominent theological organizations and authority on British Evangelicalism his influence is large enough that I argue he warrants inclusion. Additionally, the rosh yeshiva argument seems to warrant his inclusion; at least until Wikipedia decides to adjust the guidelines. Fountainviewkid 22:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be little third party coverage to substantiate the claim that the "theological organizations" Stephen is head of are "prominent". Certainly neither the Wales Evangelical School of Theology nor Affinity (Christian organisation) show any evidence of prominence. "British Evangelicalism" is a very small pond to be the 'big fish' of. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of evidence (third party specifically) to substantiate the claim that the organizations are prominent. Unless of course the leading British news sources (both papers & the BBC) are not considered "coverage". Affinity represents over 1,300 churches. That's not exactly a "small pond" in terms of notability standards here. Technically you could argue that pretty much any article is the "big fish" of the small ponds. That is largely what encyclopedias are. They take the most important and noticeable items (people, places, events) and describe them for the populace as a whole. If you want I could post another 20 or so links demonstrating the notability of the various organizations, but our debate here is on Stephen not the organizations. Fountainviewkid 4:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Google News reveals no coverage from "leading British news sources (both papers & the BBC)" on Wales Evangelical School of Theology (just one hit from WalesOnline and 4 hits from Korean sites). Affinity is a bit more problematical due to its generic title -- but various combinations of 'affinity' 'evangelical' and/or 'british' do not turn up any (prominently-featured) relevant Google News hits. It's own website leaves it ambiguous as to the extent to which it "represents" the constituent churches -- describing itself as a "partnership" and stating only that they are "in fellowship" with Affinity via their parent groups.[52] HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Google News won't have much on the school or the organization. It tends to only have more recent information and especially focuses on the most prominent news sources. I have never seen Google News be used as the standard for notability of a school or organization. If that were the case then many many private colleges that are well established would not be allowed to have articles here for example Southern Adventist University, Andrews University,Atlantic Union College, etc.You also have to use other search terms such as "British Evangelical Council" of "Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches". Generic titles are no reason to declare lack of notability, especially when information has already been posted from several authoritative sources. Look especially in the British religious journals of the Presbyterians, Evangelicals Now, Evangelical Times, and you will see large amounts of information. These journals are not the official journal of the organization either so they can qualify as a secondary source. I did find some references, though, to the various organizations on the BBC, and the Daily Mail. I still think however that a large part of this stands on the "rosh yeshiva" argument. Regardless of the organizations/books/articles, etc. as long as the "rosh yeshiva" argument is considered acceptable then Stephen achieves notability. With that argument the specific issues we are currently debating are largely irrelevant. Fountainviewkid 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make up your bloody mind! First you say "leading British news sources (both papers & the BBC)" (which would most certainly be covered by Google News) are covering the organisations, then when I prove that claim to be WRONG, you claim "Of course Google News won't have much on the school or the organization." According to Affinity (Christian organisation), the "British Evangelical Council" went "moribund" decades before it was renamed & relaunched under Stephen, so it is unclear how any (unsubstantiated) notability of the old incarnation reflects upon him. Announcements in "authoritative" AFFILIATED sources does nothing to add to notability. In any case, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so Stephen's notability has to be established independently of these organisations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use AFFILIATED sources. Simply because Stephen wrote in them does not make them affiliated. The Church journal sources are relevant as they are valid and reliable and demonstrate notability. His notability is demonstrated as a result of being the leader of these organizations. You can't separate one without the other. It's like trying to argue that a certain person is notable, without being allowed to say why they're notable. Fountainviewkid 12:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does Stephen frequently write for Evangelicals Now, but its editor's church is a member of Affinity. I would suggest that this demonstrates quite a clear degree of affiliation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can also look in Evangelical Times, which is not associated with any of his organizations as far as I know. He has articles there too. Fountainviewkid 12:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: on the purported 'rosh yeshiva' precedent, I would point out that (i) neither of the AfDs cited by Agricola44 resulted in a 'keep' outcome, (ii) no substantiation has been offered that there is any precedent that "even small religious colleges are 'major academic institutions'" (iii) Such a precedent would be dangerous as (a) there are a large number of such "small religious colleges", often lacking much in the way of third-party coverage & (b) WP:PROF's caveat that "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." (which should provide a legitimate hurdle for such articles) appears to be largely ignored. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the rosh yeshiva argument is accepted by the community as according to Agricola44 it might be, then Stephen needs to stay. There is plenty of evidence in third party source of his notability. Fountainviewkid 12:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's be honest. There are, in practice, only 2 possible outcomes of an AfD, "keep" and "delete". The euphemism "no consensus" is precisely the same as its default of "keep" because those articles are indeed permanently retained. Moreover, the "rosh yeshiva" argument is not purported. There are many cases (of which I cited two recent ones) where the "major academic institution" argument has been successfully used to retain heads of small Jewish colleges (that is the precedent, could not make this any more clear) and (simultaneously, actually) used to delete counterparts from other religions. In sum, retaining one religious persuasion over others is what gives the impression of bias, which basically discredits WPs reputation as an objective encyclopedic source of information. Even though all such articles are simply just a form of "boosterism", in my opinion, it is much more important to treat them consistently. They all stay, or they all go. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • By the way, you can expect this problem to become more pronounced, ...er... precedent to become stronger. As an example, HTC (which I mentioned above) already has its own dedicated template upon which about another 25 red-linked "rosh yeshiva" and "former rosh yeshiva" bios are queued-up for creation. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rebuttal: there is a very obvious difference between "no consensus" and "keep" that is very relevant to its application to this issue. Where there is explicitly "no consensus" that non-existent consensus CANNOT provide the basis for a precedent (and in any case, the existence of relevant, contrary outright-delete decisions would undercut any minuscule precedental significance such 'no consensus'es might have). This is a clear attempt at guideline creep, and makes the "Let's be honest" prefixed to Agricola44's comments more than a little ironic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You may continue to argue in the abstract all you wish. Those pages were kept, which anyone may see for themselves here and here – validation, I believe, of my argument of what happens in actual practice. Guidelines have already crept, as it were. Agricola44 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Validation on notability I've added info from this [53] denunciation of Stephen's creationism from the British Centre for Science Education. They are a mainstream group that calls Stephen "influential" a "a leading creationist and deeply conservative evangelical minister" and credits him with turning the Wales Evangelical School of Theology into "a leading centre of creationism amongst theological training seminaries." I understand that the previous editors were judging WP:N on the basis of an article without this information. But I figured that a little diligent googling would turn up more information about him. And it has.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This [54] series of articles in Evangelicals Now also supports WP:N.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" did you fail to comprehend? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of these reliable sources are not "independent"? Simply because it's an Evangelical magazine does not mean we have to eliminate it as a source for notability anymore than we'd eliminate a political magazine for providing notability of a political leader. Fountainviewkid 5:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
They appear to be articles by Stephen. That would, by definition, make them not independent of him. Guettarda (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The list of articles includes articles that are about Stephen [55], articles that discuss his published work and opinions [56], interviews with Stephen [57] and articles that are written by Stephen. Of course, when magazines publish your articles, this is part of what makes you WP:N.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Not true"? All 10 articles on the page you linked to, the first page of the search, are by Stephen, as is one of the next 9, while the last 3 aren't related to him at all. Please don't accuse me of not being truthful when, in fact, every article on the page you linked to is actually by Stephen. That aside, the source can't be independent of Stephen if he writes for it. As for "when magazines publish your articles, this is part of what makes you WP:N" - no, this is not true. Please read WP:N. Writing for some obscure magazine or website does not make you notable. It's funny really...I'm pretty sure I'm more Wikipedia-notable than this guy. And I'm absolutely certain I'm not notable. Guettarda (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, its not true I just double checked. you have to read further than the list (which is three pages long, with more than "10 articles" Some are by Stephen, some are about him, at least one is an interview with him. Just click the links I posted. It is certainly not ture that you cannot write for a publicaiton that is independent of you. Think a minute. Lots of the pastors, politicians and genaral pooh-bahs with pages on wikipedia write the occasional article for The Atlantic or the Washington Post op-ed page. That does not mean that they are not independent of these publications. This is true even of publications with a political inflection, The Guardian, The New Republic, The National Review which are probably a better analogy for the relationship of someone like Stephen with Evangelicals Now which claims: "The editors are responsible to a board of directors headed by William MacKenzie, and are accountable to 40 ‘members’ who support the board in running EN." [58] I suspect that, like The Christian Century, The New Republic or First Things, Evangelicals Now publishes articles almost exclusively by authors who agree with it's ideological commitments. This does not mean that the authors are not independent of the publication, unless, as in some cases, they are.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



As someone pointed out earlier, the BCSE page is user-created and anyone with an account can edit it, making it inadmissible as a source for anything. I'm heading over to remove it now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not So The BCSE webpage includes a Wiki on which they follow the politics aof creationism in Britain. But not just "anyone" can edit. This is a wiki, but it's not Wikipedia. You first have to have to become a member of the British Centre for Scientific Education. Only members can edit. This needs further looking into.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2011I.Casaubon (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) (UTC)I.Casaubon (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this material to the page and taken the question of source reliability to the article's talk page.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as I voted keep first time round) - Britain is not the US - everything is far smaller over here, and that includes evangelical christianity. Things that are notable over here would be insignificant in the US. The subject is notable for his career as an evangelical leader, and the institution he heads is notable - it has 160 students, which is quite a lot for a British theological seminary. Sidefall (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no evidence that Stephen passes WP:BIO. There doesn't seem to be any real third-party coverage. The articles actually used as sources give precious little biographic information, and very little that suggests notability. (After all, coverage in third party sources is a minimum condition for a bio; it is not in itself a demonstration of notability; I can think of two news stories that deal with me in at least as much detail as these do, in real newspapers, but despite that I'm not notable.) As to the "rosh yeshiva precedent" - I'm in no position to judge the breadth of support for such an idea, and until someone updates WP:ACADEMIC appropriately it's nothing more than an anecdote in a couple no consensus AFDs. Anyway, WEST itself seems barely notable (it also lacks third party sourcing), so using an argument of inherited notability based on being head the seminary strikes me as rather a stretch. Guettarda (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is this [59] interview/profile in a monthly magazine, and there is the fact that he has been the head of an sizable seminary, called to the pulpit of an important church church, and headed two WP:N Christian organizations, Affinity (Christian organisation) and the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. There was Stephen's role as a political activist on behalf of the imprisoned Ian Stillman[60][61][62] And then we have a political advocacy outfit, the British Centre for Science Education, calling Stephen "a leading creationist and deeply conservative evangelical minister" and "an influential" young earth creationist who has turned the Wales Evangelical School of Theology into "a leading centre of creationism amongst theological training seminaries."I.Casaubon (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there's one profile of him (in a pretty minor source), and a few mentions in the context of the Stillman affair. The "Get Surrey" content is essentially one story, and Stephen is more a source than the subject. WP:BIO requires multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and I don't believe that this coverage meets that requirement. as for his role in these other organisations - please see WP:INHERITED. He cannot inherit their notability just because he worked for them. In addition, given the lack of independent, reliable third-party sources in those articles, I see no evidence that "Affinity" is actually notable.

As for the BCSE article - please note that it cites Wikipedia. While I think that BCSE can be a reliable source, that specific article cites Wikipedia extensively. That's a big problem for any source. Its mention of Stephen is also very much passing mention. For those reasons I don't think it should be used. Guettarda (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We differ. *Treasury [63] is the monthly magazine of the Presbyterian Church of Wales and the profile closes with a lament that Stephen will never hold the pulpit in one of their churches. When a rival denomination sees a pastor as important enough to pofile, that's notable. * Here he is interviewed on the BBC[[64]], [65] - BBC must have some reason for deciding to interview Stephen, such as, he's a particularly notable minister. * On l'affaire Ian Stillman there were a series of articles over about 2 years, in this one [66][67] about half the content is about Stephen and his relationship with Stillman, including the fact that it was Stephen's Carey Baptist Church that sponsored Stillman's mission in India, and the fact tat the Church not only regularly brought Stillman back from India to speak (and, presumably, to visit his family in Reading,) but that Stephen traveled to India to visit Stillman's work with the deaf there. It is, in other words, about Stephen in addition to being about Stillman and substantiates Stephen's notability. * As for the BCSE articles (there are two) [68] the first cites many sources and seems to have a single citation to Wikipedia. The second cites many sources including several citations to Wikipedia.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Blurbing books is something you don't get asked to do unless the author and publisher regard you as notable enough that your name on the book will sell copies. Stephen blurbs quite a lot of books. Here are a few: [69], [70], [71], [72]I.Casaubon (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I continue to have reservations about the validity of assessing Stephen, or other clergy, in the category WP:ACADEMIC. and WP:BIO has no category for clergy. What would the process for adding a section on asessing the notability of clergy to WP:BIO look like?I.Casaubon (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage in Reliable Secondary Sources in addition to articles in several newspapers in Wales interviews on the BBC and other WP:RSources cited, Stephen has had significant coverage in Evangelicals Now(some of these [73] articles are about him, others are by him), which seems to play a role analogous to that of The Christian Century or Christianity Today for left or righward leaning Christians respectively in the U.S. He also publishes with some frequency in Evangelical Times which ran this article [74] about the first year of his presidency. His fundraising and expansion plans for the College also attracted coverage.[75]I.Casaubon (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • to the closing editor Kindly note that much of the WP:RS in the article was added today, including material from the BBC, Evangelical Times and a Welsh newspaper, and was not in the article when many editors voted. I also have slightly improved the Wikipedia page of the Wales Evangelical School of Theology, equally difficult to find on google because it has had 4 official names and multiple nicknames - go try and google the several abbreviated names Evangelicals actually call it, even in print, this school used to be routinely simply called Barry and is now called WEST. Both pages could use more editing by someone who knows the Welsh and British Evangelical world. Several of the voting editors made good faith searches on the school and also on Stephen, but, searching a name like Jonathan Stephens is like looking for a pin in an Anglophone haystack. Full disclosure: I felt responsible to keep googling until I found sources or discovered that none existed on this impossible-to-google name for the simple reason that I felt responsible for the AFD since the nom appears to have discovered this page only after I linked it to an article on Carey Baptist Church where we also disagreed on an AFD.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed my 'delete' opinion because of the various references listed by Fountainviewkid, the reference from the Bible League Trust certainly displays third party coverage of the subject, but the other references which are not merely trivial mentions are from religious organisations which I find difficult to tell whether they are third party sources or not. However, the Wales Online and Evangelical Times references from I:Casaubon also seem to be third party coverage confirming the subject's notability. Unfortunately, I could not find an interview on the BBC, and the BBC's inclusion of the subject on a panel for a talk show does not confirm or deny notability. However, the Get Surrey reports are on the subject's campaign to free Ian Stillman, and that, together with the other references I have mentioned, probably amounts to just enough notability for an article. Coyets (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also to the closing admin: whilst it is possible that some few of the plethora of badly-formatted references added today may be reliable, independent and offer significant coverage of the topic, it would appear that the bulk fail on one or other of these three points. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that the bulk of the references provided during this discussion are totally irrelevant because they provide no evidence of notability, but we need to concentrate on those that are relevant. The fact that someone is providing many references which need to be ignored is also totally irrelevant to the question we are trying to answer as to whether the subject is notable. Coyets (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • mystery solved I have been puzzled at the relative scarcity of press citation. It has just occurred ot me that the press may be misspelling his name ((Stephens). You have to google it with key words such as: Wales, evangelical or Christian. More sources are out there. But I may not get to do/finish this for a few hours.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, very perceptive. I noticed this as well. In one case the spelling was John Stevens or something to that effect. I checked to see if it was the same person and sure enough, unless there's another "John Stevens" with the exact same biography (dean of WEST, director of Affinity, Welsh, etc.). That's why I voted "Keep" and worked to find a number of sources. Fountainviewkid 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Korean Press accounts I have just added four Korean newspaper accounts, all from google news in 2011. I copied and pasted the Korean text into google translate, and found Jonathan's West's name, his photograph in Korea signing the agreement with the Korean megachurch SaRang Community Church, and the fact that he "preached a sermon" after the agreement signing took place. For those who are not aware, Korean has many more Christians than the U.K.Can we close this AFD now?I.Casaubon (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide some evidence that these are reliable sources that are appropriate for a WP:BLP. Not being able to read Korean, I can't even establish what the name of the publication might be. How did you determine that they meet our requirements for reliable sources and are not, say, just local church bulletins? Guettarda (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Church bulletin do not get picked up by news google. Large Christian newspapers do. The Korean papers are named "Hunan Power News Power Chungcheong News", the second seems to be called Christian Today, I'm working on it and trying to add the English translation of the names to the references, but some of the bold face Korean script (i.e. the stuff that looks like a masthead) won't copy as text, only as image.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here [76] you can see the home page of one of the papers, with what I take to be a screen shot of the hard copy (print) edition. I take this one to be a Christian newspaper. Perhaps they all are. Korea is one of the world's more dynamic and largest Christian communities. For all I know they may have multiple, large daily or weekly Christian newspapers. That sort of thing doesn't really exist anymore in the U.K., but some Latin countries still have Catholic dailies, Poland has the very popular Gosc Niedzielny (owned by the Archdiocese of Katowice). Where such papers exist I suppose them to be as reliable (or un-) as any other ideologically inflected newspaper might be. (You hardly get the same slant inthe New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, or the Telegraph and the Guardian, all) So, I can't tell whether some of these newspapers are newspapers are Christin or secular. But I expect that even a church bulletin, let along a newspaper big enough to be picked up by news google and have a print edition like the one in the photo) could be trusted to accurately report a partnership between a megachurch and a Bible College.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the papers [http://www.kukinews.com/news/nMain/index.asp} is apparently secular. I Just had to share this translation [http://news.kukinews.com/article/view.asp?page=1&gCode=kmi&arcid=0004703613&cp=nv} Where google turns a Welsh seminary principal into a General: "Stephen, General 'has been praying for this job four years,' he was thrilled. General Stephen 'the unreached land in Western Europe, but rejected the gospel of God left the ground,' said 'to spread the gospel in Europe once again please pray for lead,' he said." Amen.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my question - I asked how you decided that these are BLP-appropriate reliable sources. The fact that one has a paper copy doesn't mean a whole lot - I get our Conference newsletter in paper every week...it looks just like a newspaper. But that doesn't mean I'd use it as a source in a Wikipedia article, much less to establish the notability of someone mentioned in it. If you can't even provide the name of the publication you're linking to, I don't see how you can assert that it's a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: The AfD was relisted after a discussion with Cirt (talk · contribs), who had previously closed the debate as delete (diff). The AfD was relisted to allow further discussion of the Korean-language sources I.Casaubon (talk · contribs) recently added to the article. Cunard (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment I and others requested that the article be relisted, not simply because of the Korean links, although they so add to N, but because the closing editor appeared to me and to others to have come to a conclusion not supported by the debate in which I and others argued that on the basis of the large (1300 churches) organizations he runs, the successful campaign he led to free an unjustly imprisoned missionary, and the significant theological seminary he heads this man is notable under WP:GNG. Plus the fact that the page is supported by reliable sources. Other editors argued that the seminary was too small to support notability as an Academic. But there was no consensus in the discussion, and so it still.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Korean newspapers, these seem to be passing mentions, and do not count as substantial coverage. This is in addition to the fact that the newspapers don't seem to be particularly reliable... Got anything better? bW 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you cut and paste the text into google translate, it is clear that these articles are about the support that Jonathan Stephen negotiated to have the College he heads receive ongoing support from the Korean church. They are not passing mentions.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything better? YES! Many many sources demonstrating his notability. See the whole discussion above. The reason why some "delete" editors changed their mind. Fountainviewkid 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The others have all been clearly debunked. The only thing being discussed is whether the Korean sources change anything. I do not think they do. bW 18:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, perhaps. But User:Coyets notes above in his reversal of his early deletion vote, "I have removed my 'delete' opinion because of the various references listed by Fountainviewkid, the reference from the Bible League Trust certainly displays third party coverage of the subject, but the other references which are not merely trivial mentions are from religious organisations which I find difficult to tell whether they are third party sources or not. However, the Wales Online and Evangelical Times references from I:Casaubon also seem to be third party coverage confirming the subject's notability.... the Get Surrey reports are on the subject's campaign to free Ian Stillman, and that, together with the other references I have mentioned, probably amounts to just enough notability for an article. Coyets (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)" Note that his assessment was made before the Korea material was added to the article.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And even with that change of vote, absent the Korea material, the discussion was ruled to have consensus for deletion. Hence, any further arguments is regarding the KOREAN sources. I'm waiting to hear an evaluation on the reliability of those. bW 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh no. The deletion was removed. The other sources are relevant to the debate. Fountainviewkid 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have asked Ugen64 (talk · contribs) and Benlisquare (talk · contribs), two editors who speak Korean, to review the reliability and depth of the Korean-language sources. Cunard (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is it appropriate for someone to simply write to Jonathan Stephen and ask him to add sources to the article. Most notable people have records of the published interviews they have given.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed the sources added, and, surprise surprise, they don't attest notability. A packaged quote from Stephen in an article on something else - an article on his school that quotes him in his capacity as principal, an article on evangelicalism that quotes him saying people need Jesus, an article on Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ that quotes him saying it's not anti-Semitic because Jews really did kill Jesus - is not an article on him and it is not significant coverage of him. The four Korean-language sources (Christian newspapers) are all on the same event, which has to do with WEST rather than with Stephen personally; again, a quote from him in an article on his school is not coverage of him. Self-published sources like some random guy's sermon posted on a user-generated sermon website and another random guy's review uploaded to a pdf host are not RS. As well, recent additions have flagrantly misrepresented the sources in question, even the ones that aren't reliable anyway, which rather shows how non-notable this guy is when you have to make false statements about already unreliable sources to even grasp at notability. (For example, saying that Jones's sermon, the one published on the user-generated website, is "assessing Stephen's position"; it's not, it cites something he wrote in a footnote.) If this is kept, it's going to need some serious intervention to undo all the damage other users did in trying to claim Stephen was notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Roscelese. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it may be best to keep it as it may have some point. also it is a longish page, not a stub.user 86.144.26.252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.26.252 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — IP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Given that the discussion was previously judged to be a consensus in favor of deletion, and given that Roscelese's points above, taken at face value, represent a very convincing dismissal of the new Korean-language sources in terms of whether they represent significant coverage of the article topic, I think this remains a deletion outcome. I am adding this discussion to my watchlist to see if the two editors Cunard mentions above have a different appraisal of the new sourcing that might change my opinion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the reason why it was relisted is irrelevant now. In fact, there were six keep votes and six delete votes, so the consensus to delete was marginal at best. In fact, I can't really see that consensus in the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • review Jonathan Stephen became the head of Wales Evangelical School of Theology in 2006. Usually , being head of an institution that grants the PhD and professional degrees (in this case, to Christian Ministers) is usually sufficient for WP:N. He has or is also head of Affinity (Christian organisation) and of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. Since taking over at WEST, he has (2009) gotten the school secular accreditation to grant every degree form the BA to the PhD; led an expansion campaign covered in Welsh newspapers, and now he has forged a partnership that will bring students and funding to West from Korea, covered in several Korean newspapers (these are now being read by Korean-speaking Wikipedians who will report back) but one of them is the Korean edition of Christianity Today. in his previous job as pastor of Carey Baptist Church he led a campaign to free missionary Ian Stillman from an unjust imprisonment in India, and this was covered in the British Press. His ctivities and positions on political quesiton within the Evangelical movement have been covered in the independent British evangelical monthlies Evangelical Times and Evangelicals Now. He speaks in churches and at Christian conferences across Britain. What puzzles me is that we are discussing notability. Where is the downside of including on Wikipedia a reliably-sourced article on a well-known Evangelical preacher and Christian leader?I.Casaubon (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's all nice as well as irrelevant. Do you have evidence of substantial coverage in third party sources? That is what is required for WP:NOTABILITY. No, we do not have a WP:NotabilityForChristianIndividualsWhoDontMeetTheGeneralGuideline. bW 22:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many. But being head of an accredited college that grants the PhD and attracts students form the other side of the world is sufficient.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to what notability guideline? That's not in WP:NOTABILITY and there is no WP:NotabilityForPresidentsOfSmallCollegesThatGivesAFewDoctoratesAYear. So again, which notability guideline, and HOW? bW 22:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the director of Affinity. This is a group of 1300 churches, which would put Stephen's directorship on par with being an archbishop. The statement "He is often quoted in or interviewed by the press on subjects related to Christianity" is a bit unencyclopedic, but it seems true - he does receive a fair bit of coverage in Wales. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One would surmise that if this were truly "on par with being an archbishop," this individual would be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources like an archbishop. This has yet to be conclusively demonstrated, however. I see a number of reasons to expect notability expressed above, but no proof. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - one would also note that the church structure of the Catholic churches and most protestant churches are very different. Catholic churches are very top down, meaning the Archbishop is much more influential, than in a congregationalist system that most protestants prefer. bW 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis
My Korean is quite sketchy at most, and so I've done as much as I can to gain somewhat of an understanding.
  • [77] is a site that focuses on NGO activities, political and social events, culture, etc. It is not a "dedicated news website" of sorts (like CNN, BBC, etc), and is potentially partisan. The site has other articles such as "Walk the way of the Lord mission", "Group punishment is constitutional in relation to homosexual acts", "A Council of the devil is a necessary evil", "There is no glory without the cross", "The Glory of God to determine legal contentions", "Gay movies: Should our youth be watching these?", "The Holy Spirit is dissatisfied with provincial leaders", which also suggest partisanship. Some of the articles somewhat resemble evangelism. I could not find an organization mission statement on the site though.
  • [78] is a Christian news site, and thus is potentially partisan. (Partisan sites are generally not considered WP:RS, unless the topic is about the partsan side themselves; e.g. you can cite the Amnesty International website to write about Amnesty International organization, however you cannot cite them to reference the number of abortions done in Ghana, as partisan sites are sometimes not neutral in their guesses and estimates) The site is managed by a Christian community organization. However, this website is not as "evangelical" as the first, and does report events in a matter-of-fact, normal way (e.g. "Church leaders meet with XYZ", "School built in XYZ")
  • [79] is also a Christian news website. Not as evangelical as the first website, however does host some rather odd, fringe topics ("The boy's three minutes was his time amongst the celestials!").

Hope that helps. A note that I can't really conceretely say whether a site is a valid reliable source or not; I'll leave that judgment to you. I am unsure of what to make of these, and I cannot solidly confirm anything, so you might take my words with a grain of salt; it's up to you on how you interpret the above. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his analysis, I conclude that the sources, which are mostly partisan, are unreliable for a biography of a living person. After reading the commentary by Roscelese (talk · contribs), I believe that this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Thank you[[User:李博杰]. The third of the Korean sources discussed is the Korean edition of Christianity Today , an American publication, larger than the British publications Evangelicals Now and Evangelical Times, because there are a lot more evangelical Christians in the U.S. than in Britain. Here is the discussion of Christianity today form the RS noticeboard:
Christianity Today

Is Christianity Today Magazine a reliable source on third parties? In particular is it a reliable source on Islamic countries, or citizens from Islamic countries? This shows that it is a non-objective source. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good resource for Christians and those seeking healing. But don't think its a good source for wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly Christianity Today is written from an evangelical Christian point of view. But that does not mean that the information in their news section is inaccurate. For example, the following item about events in an Islamic country appeared in its News Briefs section: The Malaysian government has ruled that non-Muslim publications may not use the word Allah. The Herald, a Catholic newspaper, filed a lawsuit against the government December 5 protesting the prohibition, and it continued to use Allah in its 2008 editions. [80] This item was accurate, as can be seen from the International Herald Tribune and Reuters. Hence, we should not assume that Christianity Today is inaccurate in its coverage of news events in Islamic countries. Each citation to Christianity Today should be judged on its own merits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is reliable for statements of opinion (ie for statements about what the magazine says). As for statements of fact, I agree with Metropolitan90... each citation should be checked out, to be sure that the admitted evangelical bias of the magazine is not distorting the facts... but that needs to be done on a citation by citation basis. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased sources are not equivalent to unreliable sources. While bias can obviously affect reliability, it is not a question that should be resolved by using other sources to disprove their points and cast them as "unreliable". That is an approach contrary to our only founding content principle: NPOV (see m:Foundation issues). Generally, the use of biased sources should be evaluated based on proper weight. For example, extremist sources are often considered unreliable, but the clearest (and most fundamental) principle excluding them from use is NPOV, which excludes extreme minority views. All that said, the reason question at hand in this case is whether or not the evangelical Christian perspective is significant enough for inclusion in the article in question. Vassyana (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I continue to think that these sources, the several general-circulation British newspapers, and the fact that this man heads a college that grants professional and doctoral degrees and a large organization add up to WP:N.I.Casaubon (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is incorrect. The linked source is not the Korean edition of Christianity Today, which can be found here. It is a different publication with a suspiciously similar URL and some apparently fringe-y content, per above analysis. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Actually, 100 students at a seminary is a major seminary.  Not sure how to prove this though, this is based on personal knowledge.  Maybe it would give some perspective to count the faculty and determine how big the church would be that hired that much staff.  I see that the actual count of students is 170 but that includes undergrads.  Oh well.  Anyway, with all of the sources the topic meets WP:GNG so WP:ACADEMIC can be ignored.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current state of the article —which appears to have been vastly improved since the initial nomination—  meets the WP:BIO standard.--PinkBull 15:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just noticed that in addition to incorrectly stating that one of the Korean sources is the "Korean edition of Christianity Today", one of the contributors to this discussion also incorrectly described two sources in the article as being "Christianity Today." I have fixed this, but I am slightly frustrated that neither the incorrect assertion in this AfD nor the incorrect citations in the article itself were fixed when I.Casaubon is apparently fully aware of this rather critical mistake (as you can see here: [81]). I hope the above and in-article misleading suggestions that Jonathan Stephen has been the subject of substantial coverage in Christianity Today have not had any material impact on this discussion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canucks–Flames rivalry[edit]

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

Unsalvagable mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:POV violations. The article takes several news articles about the Calgary Flames and several stories about the Vancouver Canucks to try and synthesize a story of a rivalry. Almost nothing of this article actually discusses an actual rivalry. It is simply the history of two sports teams mashed together into one article. Attempts at establishing the Flames-Canucks rivalry as being especially notable are the result of the editor engaging in POV editorializing. i.e.: "In the early and mid nineties, the rivalry was considered among the most intense in the NHL, with the two teams often battling for top spot in the Smythe and later Pacific Division", and the two assertions that divisional realignments "resolidified" the rivalry.

The very first paragraph of the body reveals the fatal flaws with this article: It mentions in one sentence that the two teams met in the playoffs four times in the 1980s, then goes off to discuss Vancouver's playoff run of 1982, and the Flames championship run of 1989. The closest thing to an argument on a notable rivalry is the direct playoff meetings, yet they are pushed below the two team's individual stories. Not to mention that the editor treats a book author's POV that the Flames' 1989 title run was made "easier" by the eliminaton of the Oilers as immutable fact despite the obvious reality that the Kings were both a better team than the Oilers that year, and had the best player in the sport's history.

There is little doubt that a rivalry exists between the teams on the basis of geography and 31 years of mutual history in the same division. But there is no evidence that it is encyclopedic or notable. This is not the Battle of Alberta, for which entire books have been written. It is akin to the old Flames-Jets or Oilers-Kings rivalries, which were simply the result of playing in the same division and meeting in the playoffs a few times. Hardly any more notable than any other divisional rivalry, as the lack of direct references will attest. Resolute 16:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Resolute 16:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sports reporters mention "rivalry" much too often for the word to have any meaning coming from them. Game summaries are not evidence for a "rivalry", merely evidence that the teams played each other a lot. A multitude of uncited (or misleadingly cited) claims make this article tough to want to preserve. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of the article, but I am not sure there is much that is salvageable from this incarnation of it. Canada Hky (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, all that I find salvagable from most of these "rivalry" articles are head-to-head record and playoff history. These are things that I believe could easily fit within the division articles themselves. Resolute 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning on doing it, or saying it definitely is possible, just that if someone were to come up with a well-referenced, neutral article on the subject, I think there is a place for it on Wikipedia. Canada Hky (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This has come up before. There are few truely notable rivalries in sports. Ones that have books etc written about them. This is certainly not one of them. Full of Synth. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agree with the above. The tendency of fanboys to describe intense, vicious "rivalries" based on that the teams played a recent playoff series is acute, it's always fueled by bored sports reporters, and it's to the point I'm up for any consensus to ignore any sources that aren't from national magazines or books alleging the same.  Ravenswing  19:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched for evidence that this a notable rivalry. As Djsasso notes, rivalries usually engender books. There is a book by Cole in the list of references, and the book does discuss rivalries ("This book captures the great rivalries, the stars, and classic commentary moments from the days of radio.") but not specifically the Canucks–Flames, nor even rivalries specifically. I looked at the four times the book was cited, and I didn't see evidence it was used to support the claim about a rivalry. In most cases, it was simply used to document some event; in no case that I noticed did it document an event involving both teams. The clearest statement in support of the thesis is "In the early and mid nineties, the rivalry was considered among the most intense in the NHL," yet this sentence is unsourced.
With 37 references, I wouldn't expect that all would directly support the title claim but I would expect a fair number would. There must be some, but I didn't see any. Most of the references aren't supporting events involving both teams. Three of which that do (refs 5,6 and 7) are statistical summaries, and do not use the word "rivalry".
I suspect someone can point out a few references which do talk about a rivalry, but it shouldn't be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I suspect half the readers here couldn't tell you anything about the UConn-Tennessee rivalry, but I could easily find 1000 references. I don't think a thousand are needed to support the claim, but I don't think we have a half-dozen here. --SPhilbrickT 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some memorable series/games, but not a significant rivalry. Patken4 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Go Oilers! 117Avenue (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Problems common to many sports rivalry articles with similar authorship. The nominator has said it all. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dollarsms[edit]

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

concern = unsourced WP:NEOLOGISM. Google searches do not back up the claims of poularity. Dsiputed prod. noq (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to mobile donating, it looks like the author has entirely made up this term. jorgenev 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches aren't just turning up minimal information, they are turning up nothing.--SPhilbrickT 21:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dauben[edit]

Joseph Dauben (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 BLP article has no reliable sources and seems to fail notability for an academic. Attempt to prod the article was removed without explanation, hence AFD. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added one reference from a book review, but I agree that it is dubious if he passes notability criteria. Thenub314 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep on basis of WP:Prof#C5. Would the nominator comment on the GS cites in this case and whether they contribute to WP:Prof#C1? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF: WP:Prof#C5 (as Distinguished Professor at CUNY), WP:Prof#C3, as elected member/fellow of several national and international academies, etc. Recommend withdrawing the nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Notability as a Distinguished Professor at CUNY(City University of New York) would be fine to meet WP:Prof#C5 except this claim is unverified. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please give me a break. There are a ton of sources verifying his Distinguished Professor rank, some of them already listed in the article (e.g. this one [82]). Here are several more: Graduate Bulletin at Leham College[83], Lehman college history page[84], faculty profile at the Master of Liberal Arts program at the CUNY Graduate Center[85], Lehman College Distinguishe Professors page[86], etc. Do you seriously doubt the veracity of his rank? Nsk92 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination - Notability now established. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saving us further trouble. Please be more careful next time and carry out WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Who is "we"? Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilusion tequila[edit]

Ilusion tequila (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 Tequila brand. Article creator has a possible WP:conflict of interest. Only references is to a trademark registry and a facebook page. Google searches find nothing of significance. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete New product, lacking multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage needed to satisfy notability. The article is also promotional in tone. Edison (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per complete dearth of coverage; what Edison said. jorgenev 16:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it stay - Yes, it is a new product, and we wrote the article without using much external resources but we'll improve it. Now when I know what it takes, i'll rewrite the promotional tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.40.184 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Marasmusine (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformice[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Transformice (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 has been previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformice.

Apparently the new creator has been significantly re-written the content, however the article still boasts an alarming lack of significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Active Banana (bananaphone 14:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Funny how the games designers are supposed to be French, but there is no entry in the French Wikipedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with deleting the article? ☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the French Wikipedia may not consider it notable, which can be considered (although it is clearly not a definitive answer as our policies are a little different). Although if you want to enjoy some beans feel free to create the French article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not because not only do I not know French but I wouldn't want to do a copy-paste job onto the French Wikipedia either. I'd rather a French editor make a grassroots sort of movement and make the article on their own. But just because the game does not have an article in a certain language does not make it less notable. ☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 12:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My 'vote' is rather obvious, though the AfD process does not work on a tally of votes. Well, the article had a good month of time before the inevitable happened. After looking up the article and finding the original AfD I decided to be bold and try to get it restored. I was informed it may be listed again for AfD by the Admin who originally WP:SALTed the article. I made my best attempt to write it as cleanly and as clearly as possible, keep WP:Policies in mind, show notability and provided several reliable sources, such as Alexa rankings, Kotaku and Kongregate. The game has 200,000 likes on Facebook so I felt that at least 200,000 people aware of the game counted as notability. I felt all these things combined would allow the article a second run, but that falls on consensus now. ☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the actual notability requirements for stand alone articles? Active Banana (bananaphone 17:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I did or didn't it a moot point. Consider this: If the websites that I included in the article have articles of their own on Wikipedia and therefore pass the standard of notability, why is it that their inclusion does not warrant notability? ☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 23:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A subject is considered notable if it is the subject of multiple reliable sources which are non-trivial. If a game website is considered notable on WP that's separate thing to it being considered reliable, just because we have an article on it it doesn't mean that it's a usable source. For all that there are sources which are both reliable and non-trivial (see below) in this case. Someoneanother 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)—☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging those up. I added the first few in but didn't want to flood the article with new sources since I wasn't sure where to put them all. ☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 00:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has indeed been rewritten, but its content is broadly similar to that of the earlier version, and it has not significantly addressed the reasons for deletion given in the first AfD. It does not establish notability. In my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD (CSD G4), and indeed I deleted it for that reason. However, it turns out that another administrator had indicated to the author that the article was suitable for recreation, so I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and undeleted it. The sources given above by "Someone another" are not reliable sources, being blogs etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PC Gamer is a newstand magazine which has been around for 17 years, Kieron Gillen is a professional video game journalist, Indiegames.com is reprinted on Gamasutra which is itself a reliable source. Reliable sources don't suddenly become garbage because the website they're on uses the blog format. Someoneanother 20:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the criteria is coverage of" the subject directly in detail, .... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.". While the PCgamer article is mort than trivial mention, i fail to see any actual encyclopedic content that could be sourced from there into the article. the current usage is certianly not substantial. the PCgamer article alludes to the fact that from a game theory perspective the game is pretty brilliantly designed to test cooperation and competitive rewards, but I doubt the author has credentials in either psycology or math to be a good source for that analysis. Active Banana (bananaphone 16:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a game. I'd say a description of the game and a summary of reviews is encyclopedic content and the reliable sources provide enough information to do that. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem to be plenty and certainly enough are reliable (per Someone Another). Meets WP:N (which is a bit surprising for a free browser game, but there you are). Hobit (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has received non-trivial coverage on sites that certainly appear to be reliable sources for game coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above, which certainly provide with significant coverage, and I fail to see how Kotaku or PC Gamer can be considered either unreliable or not qualified on the matter - frankie (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are reliable, meets WP:N, and it's also notable enough to have a page on the French and Russian Wikipedia. SalfEnergy (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Armand[edit]

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

Unfortunately, while there are plenty of Google hits, I can't find anything on this person that could be called reliably sourced. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image to OCR Converter[edit]

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

Yet another product from Soft Solutions Limited (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Converter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News Publisher, AfD nominated articles about products from the same company). This article was created in October of last year, and then a helpful editor pointed out to the article's creator that there were no reliable sources in the article, which might show notability. This is still the case. All references are press releases and/or blog posts, with the possible exception of this brief notice. bonadea contributions talk 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Despite the coaching and help I gave the article creator, neither he nor I were able to find anything really WP:RS in support of this subject. Unless at least one real review can be found I have reluctantly support delete as failing WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the company is not even notable enough to merit an article, each product is not.W Nowicki (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moshuh Nanren[edit]

Moshuh Nanren (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: The article is in clear copyright violation, lack of verifiability, and could easily be a hoax. Just the term "Moshuh Nanren" (translates to "Magical Pecans") is enough to convince me it's a hoax. I have one of the referenced books, Mind Control which is a fictional book. --RedSwordsman (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The original nominator had confused the prod and AfD processes. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only source for this seems to be a single author's books. I can find no other reliable references. Papaursa (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. No evidence of notability, or even of existance outside of this author's books. Note that a fictional concept can be notable, if it's covered in the proper sources; there's no evidence of that here, however. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smart AdServer[edit]

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

I'm not sure that this company meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I am sure that this is written as an advertisement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Existing sources in the article and pretty much every source I can find via GNews are press releases. There are a few very brief mentions in reliable sources but the only significant coverage I can find are all press releases. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 12:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
  • a technology provider, which provides publishers, ad networks, agencies and advertisers with an integrated display, video, rich-media and mobile ad serving solution.
  • Tens of billions of display ads are served every month in over 1,600 websites...
  • ...created in 2001 by a major Web publisher, au Feminin, to fulfill its advanced requirements for managing its ad spaces as well as its communication campaigns. Since there were no existing tools that met their needs, the decision was made to develop an internal solution capitalizing on the latest technologies and the most advanced marketing concepts.
  • ...quickly become a key player in ad serving in Europe, by offering innovative features and formats as well as a tailor-made local service.
  • ...ad networks and publishers can optimise the impact of their online advertising campaigns and so improve their effectiveness.
When it's pure promotional twaddle like this is, notability is a non-issue; but the article references only press releases and I see nothing better. Yet another online advertising company advertising on Wikipedia. Note also that this has been speedily deleted once already, and deleted by proposed deletion again. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G11 Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepi did a little work on the page and i have started cleanup please may others assist86.144.26.252 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Darkjedi10 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I declined the speedy, because it is a major product from a major company, , and the articles can easily be written using normal editing to be less promotional. I started with the history section, and will try to continue. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note, I expressed concern extending beyond the promotional tone in my delete !vote (as did the nominator). I am unable to find any sources for this supposedly "major product from a major company" that aren't press releases -- there certainly aren't any in the article at the moment. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nor does being a "major product from a major company" really establish that this product has encyclopedic notability; nothing says that it made history in any way that establishes long term interest of the kind that would make it an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dallas Independent School District. The redirect actually represents current meta consensus on how to deal with these articles so although its a single article its the vote that represents the widely accepted approach. Spartaz Humbug! 03:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Milam Elementary School[edit]

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

Elementary/primary school with no evidence of notability. The article is also substantially promotional. The article was proposed for deletion, but the PROD was contested without any explanation by an account with no other edits. (Perhaps a new account for the author of the article, whose original account is blocked.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think that your comment in parenthesis is unnecessarily prejudicial. We have no basis for knowing the identity of the author but if we are speculating it is most likely to be a school project judged by the content. TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What is there in the article that needs to be kept? If the school is notable then we should be keeping the article, and if it isn't then why keep any of it? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is usual to put a summary of the key facts about each school in the district article. In any case, merging information about nn places and things into a more general article is standard practice. TerriersFan (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable school. Keb25 (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Blue Ribbon school, the highest award a US school can have. The better way forward is to clean up and source not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect, not notable. There are 300 "blue ribbon" schools every year; this school was on the list in 2008 but is not on the current list, so I don't see the relevance of the award. Hairhorn (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - schools can only receive the award every 5 years so the 2008 award is current and cannot be reawarded until 2013. The list you linked are not the current schools but the new 2010 awards.TerriersFan (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the details, if "blue ribbon" award is the only claim to notability, the school isn't notable. Hairhorn (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ben Milam Elementary in Dallas, TX is also notable in that the school is over 100 years old, according to their Blue Ribbon application. The city itself predates the school by mere decades. Any biases can be corrected via guidance from the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtarango (talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jtarango has no other edits apart from this one and (after this edit) creating a one-sentence user page.
  • Goodness, so anything that was created before 1911 is automatically notable? Or is there some special reason why this applies to elementary schools? My son attended a primary school that was built in the nineteenth century, but it has no Wikipedia article, and it never crossed my mind that it should have one just because it was built a long time ago. I'm afraid that there is no connection at all between being 100 years old and Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for your input, James. A centennial celebration is a significant milestone. This is especially true in a state that has yet to reach its bicentennial. On a side note, two UT Arlington students put this together for a technology class project. It would be a shame if those students' work had gone to waste. Rather than delete the page, I ask that you offer suggestions for improving this entry. Unlike others who would vandalize the wiki, they are merely trying to expand it. Jtarango
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per sources by Sodabottle (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 15:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeva Artist[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 19. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I can't even figure out what the subject's most common name is from this article. It seems like the "artist" in the title is supposed to be a qualifier, not part of his name, but it is not clear whether he just goes by "Jeeva" or whether he would more commonly be known by a longer version of that name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I said at the DRV, I have researched this and could not find anything significant on him or his school. His name is Jeeva Nanthan; see User talk:Pvrmagesh. Chick Bowen 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable artist. He is professionally known mononymously as "Jeeva". The prefix "Oviyar" (lit. Artist) is used to differentiate him from other "Jeeva"s in the Tamil film and literary fields. He is usually referred to as "V. Jeevananthan" (or sometimes erroneously as "V. Jeevanathan" in news reports. Prior to the award win, he has been quoted in news reports. [87][88]. After the Jury special mention award in the 58th Indian national awards (the highest film awards in india), He has received non-trivial indepth coverage in The Hindu ([89]), Deccan Chronicle [90] Thats Tamil and other Tamil mainstream media outlets. I will try to find and add more tamil media coverage (mostly offline, but i have seen them). The national film award special mention satisfies WP:ANYBIO. I have copyedited and wikified the article. If it is kept, it can be moved to "V. Jeevananthan" --Sodabottle (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Suggest chage of title to Jeeva (artist) as a starter; I'll leave some very basic feeback on the RfF page re references, and some how-to-do-references stuff on editor's talk page. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The in-depth coverage identified by Sodabottle is certainly enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Perhaps this article should be moved to "V. Jeevananthan" or "Oviyar Jeeva." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sodabottle, looks like he meets WP:BIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Canadian Light Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

Title doesn't meet WP:GNG. The promotion in which it is contested (Canadian Wrestling Federation) doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 04:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 04:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it was sanctioned under the National Wrestling Alliance. Sure not for the entire existence of the title's history. But it being under the National Wrestling Alliance makes it notable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, WP:INHERITED. It isn't notable just because the NWA is notable. It needs independent reliable sources of its own to prove notability. Nikki♥311 18:03, 12 May 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) 00:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one reference in the article, and it was around for two years, not long enough to establish notability in my book.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Around for two years? I guess you didn't bother looking at the creation date because it hasn't been around two years. That is unless you concept of time is screwy... Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps I should have said ACTIVE for two years, then? ...first champion on May 24, 1996 when he defeated Caveman Broda. It was vacated and became inactive on September 4, 1998. Unless my math is off (and I am sure it isn't), that's a little over 2 years, my friend.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell, this wrestling event did not attract significant coverage in independent sources. Mr. C.C., if you want this article to be kept, you should point to such coverage instead of simply asserting that "it being under the National Wrestling Alliance makes it notable," which does not appear to be an opinion rooted in Wikipedia policy. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in gnews. fails WP:GNG LibStar (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 note that no reliable sources have been adduced in this discussionl. In fact the keep side have declined to provide them - as it would detract from the experience to list them. I'm afraid that AFD doesn't work that way. Source it or lose it essentially sums up the GNG. I'm open to reviewing further sources but in their absence the delete arguments are the policy based ones. Spartaz Humbug! 03:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Indoor Football League[edit]

Southern Indoor Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
2009 Southern Indoor Football League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 Southern Indoor Football League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. 2009 Southern Indoor Football League season & 2010 Southern Indoor Football League season just expired as endorsed prods (given argument: Non notable sports league, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG). Before deleting these two season articles, it's probably worth analyzing whether the league meets the relevant notability guidelines. Does the league merit a Wikipedia article? If so, what should be done with these season articles? What of the 19 or so teams listed at Southern Indoor Football League#Teams? — Scientizzle 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 13:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I gotta say to remove all these at this point. The sources are suspect and the articles seem to be more of an ad for the league than anything else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article about the league. There's plenty of news coverage, and this is as worthy of basic coverage as any other minor sports league.[91][92] I do not have a strong opinion whether the seasons deserve their own articles, maybe it would be better to include a suitable amount of info into the main article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The league article fails WP:ORG requiring WP:Independent sources. The article is based on the league's own website. There are sources on Google on a local team in the league from a local paper, however this also fails WP:ORG, as "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." There is not interest beyond local team coverage in the league as a whole or other teams in the league. There are some hits from oursportscentral.com, however the website's contributions are from fans and does not have editorial oversight to be consider a WP:Reliable source. As for the season articles nominated for deletion, they do not list sources except for external links. Those links are to websites that are not reliable and a non-independent source (the league's own website). At best local sources can be found, which is not sufficient for notability per reasons already stated. —Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There DO exist several independent sources, but it would detract from the experience to list them all. And here I thought Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Just give it a chance and don't demolish the house while it's still being built. (PS, These OurSportsCentral articles link to reliable newspaper sources). Tom Danson (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Tom Danson (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MINDREADER says that notability should be established before an article is put into WP:Main namespace. Otherwise, the article can be developed as a user subpage until its notability is established. Please provide a sufficient number of reliable sources with significant coverage for this AfD so the league's notability can be evaluated. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how much longer are you going to relist this? Why not just call it like it is: no consensus. Tom Danson (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Danson, can you provide any sources that discuss the league in detail that are above the modest number of local paper stories about the local teams? That would really help. — Scientizzle 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RELISTINGISEVIL might be worth a review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be a disconnect here. For instance, why are only articles pertaining to the Southern Indoor Football League, a professional indoor league with a nearly national scope, being targeted for deletion, but other, more questionable leagues are not? For instance, the user has not targeted for deletion any articles regarding the Independent Indoor Football Alliance, Ultimate Indoor Football League, Eastern Indoor Football League, World Indoor Football League (2007), or one of the SIFL's predecessors, the American Indoor Football Association, all of which have fewer sources and claims to notability than the currently active SIFL, nor the American Professional Football League, which has only one reliable source. I know I had a dust-up with Paul McDonald when he was putting all the semi-pro league articles up for deletion, but at least he was attempting to ensure a modicum of consistency when applying the rules of Wikipedia. I don't see that in the nominations at hand; the sole nomination of the SIFL seems a little gratuitous to be honest. (Note: This is not meant to be a "Pokemon test" in which the sole arbiter of notability is comparability to other like leagues; I am merely stating that the notability guidelines should be applied equally. If the SIFL can be brought up to standards, but some of the others cannot, then by all means nominate them for deletion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • quick comment yeah, but I've moved on. Hope you have too! It's not personal. We've agreed on stuff at times too (you did a good job on one particular article I can rememeber).--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you bother to read the nomination, it clearly explains the why the SIFL is at AfD. To spoon-feed it: The season articles were expired prods and could have reasonably been deleted, but it seemed to me like the topic would benefit from wider discussion on the ideal breadth of Wikipedia coverage. Feel free to nominate any other articles for deletion that makes sense to you...Can you provide sources for these articles? Do you have anything to add beyond WP:WAX? — Scientizzle 01:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want a broader discussion, don't single out just one article or one particular league. Apply the rules consistently. That is all I ask. When you just pick out one article in general, it looks gratuitous and it looks like bad faith, which, despite Wikipedia's assertions to the contrary, is far too common. The fact is, by Wikipedia notability standards (which is not what WAX discusses), none of the aforementioned leagues are significantly distinguishable from the others. If we have a discussion on this one league alone, then we should have a discussion in general regarding all the leagues in question. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:ALLORNOTHING seems relevant. Discuss this article on its own merits. —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, Bagumba. As if this discussion wasn't broad enough already, I should try to include an undetermined number of superficially related articles? Why? I have little knowledge of and even less interest in leagues like this one. I was simply trying to clear out CAT:PROD with a modicum of consideration for consistency. Namely, is this league notable and, if it is, does it merit these individual season subpages? Why don't you quit wasting my time with "it looks like bad faith" junk and nominate the articles you feel should be deleted or fix this one? — Scientizzle 12:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • To answer your question, I don't know and don't have time to find out. My hunch says keep, but it would take several days for me to prove it. And if you have no interest in this, then why did you nominate it for deletion? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There definitely should be editing, however the primary page on the SIFL should remain. The season-by-season pages however could be incorporated into the solitary Southern Indoor Football League article, and those seasonal pages DELETED. Considering there are pages on football leagues that never even played a game, a league that's had more than a couple seasons is what it is.Sturmde (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not particularly convincing. Please expand on this article's merits with respect to WP principles. —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the league article. Delete season articles, merge any useable content into the sections on the main league article's page. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:!VOTE, please provide an explanation to justify keeping, or discuss sources that establish notability. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's stubbornness like this that makes me proud to be an inclusionist. Tom Danson (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a vote (one word Delete, Merge, Keep). It's already been pointed out a few times on here and been pretty clearly stated by a few other users. Minor league articles are generally notable, as almost all pro and college sport leagues have some indy verifiable sources available. Individual seasons for minor leagues are a different story and team are generally not, esp the ones listed here that don't have much info that's not already included on the main article. A quick Google search shows some references. Does the article need work? Yes, lots! Should it be deleted? No. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've already !voted above and I don't wish to belabor the discussion here, but given the continuing commentary on each of the foregoing "keep" !votes, I think it may be worth restating that GNews shows literally thousands of articles covering the activities of this league, in newspapers all over the country, over the course of the last several years. It is argued that these articles cover the local teams in each community, but I don't see how this makes the league a "local" establishment unworthy of coverage here. This is a real league of national scope playing games that are being covered extensively in real newspapers all over the country. The detailed season-by-season articles need not be kept, but I can't see how the encyclopedia's coverage of the sport of arena football would be improved by deleting the main article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its WP:WABBITSEASON until someone discusses specific independent reliable sources that have significant, non-routine coverage. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES says "Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions." WP:ORG says they cannot be local. The coverage as I have seen is for the a local team, and not for the league as a whole. Let's not exaggerate the "national scope" either; the league itself is named "Southern Indoor Football League" and is reflective of the teams locations. —Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the name. It's somewhat of a misnomer dating from the earliest years of the league. The league merged with another league that includes areas not in the South, but for reasons unknown never changed its name. I don't think very many people would consider New Jersey or Erie, PA as the "South." I'm not making a judgment keeping or deleting (quite frankly, I have a busy work schedule this week and don't have time to examine the news coverage and filter it into the articles), but keep that in mind. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions. Merge and redirect per consensus. Individual pages may not be notable, that has not been established here. tedder (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Swamp Thing Set[edit]

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

Notability has not been established in this article on an unremarkable theme park attraction, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources and is based on original research. I am also nominating these related articles for the same reason. Additionally, these articles have been tagged with reference maintenance tags for 1-4 years, any references or external links in these articles are to blogs, vacation videos posted on YouTube or similar sources or questionable reliability:

AT&T at the Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alfred Hitchcock: The Art of Making Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An American Tail Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dynamite Nights Stunt Spectacular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Earthquake: The Big One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ghostbusters Spooktacular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hercules and Xena: Wizards of the Screen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MCA Recording Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Murder, She Wrote Mystery Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Production Studio Tour (Universal Studios Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stage 54 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
StreetBusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Boneyard (Universal Studios Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Screen Test Home Video Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Wild Wild Wild West Stunt Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Universal Studios Studio Tour (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) RadioFan (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them Thoroughly non-notable, no reliable sources. The ones that are more than one or two sentences long look like a mess of original research. Anything interesting that could be said about these attractions could be put in the articles about the movies/shows that inspired them or in a list of attractions at Universal Studios, if reliable sources could be found. -- Donald Albury 17:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Merge and redirect what exactly? These articles are composed completely of original research or questionable sources. Now that you bring it up, List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions is largely made up of original research as well. It looks to be salvageable though, unlike these articles.
  • Delete abscence of reliable sources for the moment. Only if some reliable sources are added to an article, it can be merge and redirect. (sorry for the two votes it is quite difficult to express a point of view for so much articles which can evolves differently during this process) User:Themeparkgc seems to want to help, I suggest that if he wants, when there is no sources, he can keep some of the articles in an user sandbox page and try to find reliable sources to justify a merging to List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions.--Crazy runner (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Themeparkgc. I expect that sourcing is available to verify basic facts of the material that can be added post merge. For example, this article can be used to verify the existence of the Alfred Hitchock attraction, and that it was replaced by the Shrek attraction. Themeparkgc has already stated he is willing to do the merge. I am willing to assist in referencing if he needs assistance in that area. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 4 May 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, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Whpq. There's evidence that it's not completely original research; there is verifiable material worth preserving. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a merge would be a fine outcome but only what can be referenced per CrazyRunner. However, WP:EXISTENCE != notability and only 1 reference has been mentioned in this AFD and only in the context of existence. The expectation that sources exist even for basic facts isn't enough. Any articles that cant be referenced should be simply redirected without significant merge. --RadioFan (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Merging content does not require that the source article meet notability. After all, if it did, by definition, it could be kept as a standalone article instead of merging. The fact that only one source has been put forward is because I've not put any effort into sourcing all of this material that has been put forth in a mass nomination. I've already declared that I am willing to help source and merge material. -- Whpq (talk) 10:18, 18 May 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, Baseball Watcher 23:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per reasons of original nominator. I am also against a merge/redirect for other editors' stated reasons. The list has problems, and the individual entities that would be merged are not notable and unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't 23 days enough to discover references for the remaining articles that haven't already been merged and redirected? Can we get this AFD closed please? RadioFan (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since this discussion hasn't been closed yet I haven't worked on merging any of the articles yet. Once the AfD is closed, and if the result is to merge and redirect, then that is what Whpq and I will do. Themeparkgc  Talk  21:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two editors have stepped forward and volunteered their time to work on sourcing the relevant merged content, and I think the collegial thing to do would be to let them do that, but I can understand their reluctance to get started while the articles in question are still under threat of deletion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exaclty why I haven't spent any additional time sourcing these articles. If the AFD closes with a consensus to merge, I will spend the time to source and merge the material as appropriate, but I'm not willing to put the effort in to do this work if will all just be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. I don't know if there's much good information there to merge in, but I definitely think a redirect is worthwhile. There's absolutely no good reason why these articles should be deleted outright instead of redirected if two editors have already volunteered to go to the trouble of doing it. The argument that they shouldn't be merged/redirected because there are no reliable sources is irrelevant... at the very worst, if there really are no reliable sources that can be found, there may be nothing to merge, but that still doesn't mean the articles can't be redirected -- this isn't a copyvio we're talking about where the history has to be eliminated. ----Smeazel (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relisted, to gain a better assessment of consensus from community for merge, delete, or redirect - at this point in time consensus is not yet apparent for which one to do. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect with similar caveats that others have expressed that only verifiable information be merged to the List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions target article. Given the very simple nature of the information presented in the target article, I suspect that verifiable information sufficient to include in the target will not be impossible to come by for all of these articles (although perhaps for some). Props to those volunteering to execute what looks like a tedious and difficult merge. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd support a very selective merge with only verifiable content being merged. RadioFan (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tar (file format). Spartaz Humbug! 04:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star (Unix)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination for IP user. Their rationale: --Cybercobra (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are actually given on the main page:

  • Notabiliy uncertain
  • No third party references or sources
  • COI - article is essentially written by the Star author to promote his own software

My main concern is that for the typical Wikipedia user, this is just another tar implementation, and it clearly is sufficient to have star in the article Tar (file format), which also covers GNU tar and BSD tar, both of which are much more common than Star. GNU tar actually is a redirect to the Tar file format. Star should be the same, it is just another implementation for handling tar format files; all notability is drawn from being a tar archiver.

Please understand that this is not about "deleting star", but actually I believe the appropriate place is the main "tar" article, and since star is already there, there actually is not much merging required!

The appropriate place for discussion apparently is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star (Unix) but I cannot create that page, being unregistered. --87.174.113.246 (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Cybercobra (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest speedy close. It seems that what the nominator wants is a redirect or a merger. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to tar (file format). unsoureced, non-notable tar implementation. if any of the info can be sourced, it can be merged later. -Atmoz (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poor nomination by 87.174.113.246. This utility has been mainstream for decades. The O'Reilly book Unix Backup & Recovery [93] pages 142-143 mentions star being the fastest known implementation of tar. This utility has been around for a very long time and has plenty of coverage. Practically any seasoned Unix admin has used this program at one time or another. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that, but I doubt that we need separate articles on the various tar implementations. GNU tar and BSD tar are probably more common (defaults on Linux and OSX?), and do not need separate articles either (and don't have one). What is wrong with having star part of the tar file format article just as the other tar implementations? --188.104.104.61 (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The star utility actually predates GNU tar and was included with many Unix operating systems before GNU tar even existed. [94] It does not matter if GNU tar is more commonly included with Linux, OS X, or any other operating system. We don't delete articles about notable subjects due to the non-existence of other articles, because they are unfamiliar, or just because you don't like them. I'm not going to fall for your "civil" POV-pushing. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to tar. All the article says is that it is an implementation to produce "tar" files (and cpio+pax, but that is also very common for tar implementations). I don't have the impression that there is much more to say than "this is one of three popular tar implementations". As for speed, the key limitation of tar usually is disk IO, and I doubt that it does that much less disk IO than the others... CPU load of tar should be neglectable, and for compression it probably uses the same zlib as the others. --87.174.125.124 (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 87.174.* made arguments claiming there were no sources and the utility wasn't notable, neither of which turned out to be true.

    In reviewing the article's edit history, the COI claims are pretty much non-existent. Having an interest or connection with something does not necessarily mean there is a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest guideline also makes this clear. A conflict of interest would occur if the material was non-neutral, made claims which were not true, etc. The facts in the article are supported by reliable sources and the utility is widely known, used and quite notable. The only thing I see the COI claim being used for is a personal attack against Jörg Schilling.

    In further reviewing the article's edit history and the sudden activity here, there appears to be ongoing sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry from a group if German IP addresses: 188.104.122.1, 188.104.104.135, 87.174.113.246, 87.174.125.124, at least one of which appears to be connected with someone highly involved with WinRAR (I won't elaborate further here but it is pretty easy to figure out). This is a serious violation of our neutral point of view policy. I can also see that the same thing has been occurring on the German Wikipedia [95] [96] --Tothwolf (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bit on the paranoid side here... I don't even have Windows, and I have no relationship to WinRAR whatsoever. As a linux user, I do however frequently use "tar" and I was wondering if maybe "star" is better and found the article to be pretty much worthless. "star" qualified as "one particular pokemon" for me, so in the line of the Wikipedia:Poképrosal I propose to have all Pokemons (tars) mentioned in a single appropriate article: tar (file format). After all, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a complete software directory. We can treat the whole tar family in a single article. We could even go as far as merging pax (Unix) there (albeit I do think there is enough to write about pax to keep it a separate article). --93.104.75.74 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to tar (file format). I am going to claim a wee bit of authoritative knowledge. As a unix administrator, star is useful when you have very deep directory structures. This is somewhat specialized information, and I am going to claim WP:EVERYTHING and say the features star has beyond the basic tar utility do not justify it having an encyclopedia entry of its own. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Tar (file format) article, I wonder whether a sensible listing of important implementations in tabular form might be more useful than the current bullet points in Tar_(file_format)#Problems_and_limitations, giving an overview which of these extensions are supported. I don't care much that star allegedly was the first and GNU tar followed on; there are some useful extensions and they are compatible among popular implementations. On many systems, one has the choice between multiple tar implentations. Fedora for example will have GNU tar as default, but it also has a star package, probably bsdtar too. OSX has bsdtar as default. My only concern is that the table will essentially be an "all implementations support all these extensions"? Plus, we'll frequently see the addition of general archivers that also have partial tar support from Comparison_of_file_archivers... Anyway, my key reasoning is that as end user of a modern Unix system, I usually have at least the choice between GNU tar, BSD tar, star and OpenBSD pax. Some of these might already be installed (isn't pax part of the Linux Standards Base?), the others will be rather easy to install, either as package or from source (I figure neither of these has major dependencies and should thus just compile). On a Solaris system, there might also be a pre-star UNIX tar and Sun pax, I guess. The article could be more helpful here beyond the "star invented this in 2001, GNU tar sucks because it only supports this since 2004" banter that was introduced in multiple locations. So when GNU tar is already installed, why/when should I consider star - I don't live in 2001. And on the other end, which functionality should I avoid so I don't get incompatibility when extracting the archive on other platforms. The "star" article is not at all helpful on this either, that's why I proposed to merge it! Also note that star is essentially an orphan article. It is rightfully linked from Jörg Schilling, Star disambiguation, the tar file format (in a "history" way) and the redhat package manager (a link that in my opinion is already a bit spammy). And I cannot think of many extra links where one wouldn't have to write "tar or star or GNUtar or BSDtar or pax" --87.174.110.110 (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any sources that back the "rpm has star support" claim. It's a bit fishy -- I'd expect rpm to prefer GNU tar, or at least allow it alternatively. I can imagine that rpm has ustar format support, and the "u" got lost. I added a missing reference tag. The current fedora rpm documentation says the RPM archive contains a "cpio" archive; no mention of tar there. Of course you could use star to uncompress cpio though ... --87.174.110.110 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making a table there sounds like a good idea. Minor various in implementation (e.g. Solaris tar) do not justify separate articles. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spend hours digging through RPM revision logs and rpm man pages. No mentioning of tar outside of build options or star anywhere. I therefore removed that unsourced reference to Star from the RPM Package Manager article, making the star article essentially an orphan. Feel free to find a reference for this star support, but I clearly failed here. --87.174.87.151 (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tar (file format). There are multiple books mentioning star briefly either to say it has ACL support or is fast, but the latter are generally ancient books, so the information is not that relevant today. Because there's not much else that can be said about it, a separate article is unjustified due to lack of significant independent coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
star supports POSIX file extentions and very long path names, but I would agree these features alone do not make star notable. The entry for Tar (file format) could contain a short section listing different implementations with the notable features of each. Liberal Classic (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MyCMS[edit]

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

Questionable notability lacking independent coverage and written like an advertisement. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-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 userfy. User:Kohlpariah/Dreams of Liberty: Panacea Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams of Liberty: Panacea[edit]

Dreams of Liberty: Panacea (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 movie does not appear to meet the notability criteria for films. I am unable to locate significant third party coverage of this film. Prod was contested by author. VQuakr (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy this brand new article to its new editor Kohlpariah for contined work as its current state is unacceptable. The film has been screened,[98] and been the recipient of critical commentary in sources such as [RS!] Missoulian [99] and [RS?] Sovereign Independent [100] but the article needs drastic overhaul, because as currently written it is not sutable for mainspace. In his userspace, he can keep working and get input from more experienced editors. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:57, 21 May 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  06:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shayanska[edit]

Shayanska (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 indications of notability. The "references" provided are all (to the best of my ability to understand given the limitations of Google translations from Ukrainian to English) sites advertising or promoting this product in one way or another. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article subject seems to have been referenced in an academic paper on water distillation(see article talk page for link). Unfortunately its too expensive for me to get the journal and see the context. This was originally a speedy deletion nomination contested by article creator who cleaned up the article. i kan reed (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some possibly helpful searches: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the above info by Phil Bridger, I'm going make a vote and go for Keep, as it looks like this deletion nomination was a result of (reasonable) Anglocentric verification process. Seems likely to be notable in the Ukraine. i kan reed (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Running the Gnews hits through Gtranslate, they appear to be advertising or trivial passing mentions. Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 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) 01:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 19 May 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  05:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass any notability guidelines. I cant even figure out which it might fall under other than WP:GNG (Doesnt pass), and maybe WP:CORP (doesnt pass).--v/r - TP 00:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectedSign[edit]

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

Another cookie cutter article on a digital signage company with coverage only in industry news sites that are basically disguised press releases. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Instead of a silly comment with a link to an essay, I'll just simply say that I did the same search that the nom did and found the same press releases that he did, article fails WP:CORP. Please note that I'm not trying to insult anybody as the deletability of this article seems obvious so perhaps "per nom" or so long and thanks for all the fish is all that needs to be said but If I had punched this discussion without at least one !vote based on a guideline or policy, I'd look like a silly snout counter :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanonation[edit]

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

Another digital signage company article, which looks disturbingly similar to the one for Four Winds Interactive. The same reasoning from that nomination applies here as well. This article has a few more references, but they all look like routine announcements from industry news web sites. The company is going to demo product X in booth Y at convention Z, neither of which has an article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by the single purpose account User:Lucky marketer, and the only other substantive edits made the same day by an IP that geolocates to this company's home town. Hmm... FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the reference about PepsiCo http://popsop.com/41746 makes no actual mention of Nanonation. It's clear that the source did not consider it important to whom PepsiCo had subcontracted the implementation of that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note added by User:Lucky marketer

There are over 100 articles written about Nanonation by independed sources like RetailWire, Mac Observer, Retail Customer Experience etc, only 5 of those were listed in the wiki page.

Here is a list (please copy/paste): http://www.google.com/#q=nanonation&hl=en&tbm=nws&prmd=ivns&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=0NXfTZPqEKbZ0QHv25mqCg&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=74783df6b69c3072&biw=1920&bih=979 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky marketer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Lucky marketer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No one in an AfD can be expected to dig through your WP:TLDR WP:GOOGLEHITS search results to figure out which ones, if any, might be meaningful. You really only need two decent (say, 1000-word) articles from reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. Which two on that list should we look at? Probably none. Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per request: Apple Insider: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/18/apple_enterprise_sending_thousands_of_macs_into_hotels_cruise_ships.html Self Service World: http://www.selfserviceworld.com/article/159418/PepsiCo-deploying-Greenopolis-recycling-kiosks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky marketer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, neither are useful in establishing notability. The first is a minor mention in a blog that appears to be summarizing press releases. The second is a pure advertising site. Neither qualify as WP:RS. Msnicki (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Insider publishes news & information specifically related to Apple Inc. (100,000 up to 600,000 monthly readers). I could be wrong, but being mentioned in 6 paragraphs out of 12 on the first page of an article that is over 1,500 words is not a minor mention. Regarding Self-Service World - they publish industry news, and blogs posts related to Digital Signage and Kiosks (in addition to advertising). Lucky marketer (talk)

According to Google at least 8,500 internet users/year search to find more information about this specific company. I fail to understand how the information provided is not suitable or helpful for these searchers?

In regards to PepsiCo article there were 2 sources, one covers Nanonation the other PepsiCo.

I don't think anyone assumes anything. But you can't expect others to prove a negative. If you think that reliable independent secondary sources providing significant coverage (as required by WP:CORPDEPTH) actually do exist, you should properly cite them in the article or at least specifically identify them here so they can be considered. So far, none have been offered and the guidelines don't allow hand-waving the likelihood of notability based on Google hits per WP:GOOGLEHITS. Msnicki (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hoax. postdlf (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shitton Falls, Indiana[edit]

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

Hoax. "Shitton" doesn't appear in the GNIS, and the only places named "Falls" in Knox County are a school in Knox County, Illinois, an island in Knox County, Maine, and a waterfall in Knox County, Ohio. Moreover, look at the map: Freelandville is a very tiny community anyway, far too small to have its own suburbs. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Doesn't appear on local maps, either. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. As said above, it's completely unverifiable, and the name strikes me as suspicious. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax, the informations in the article are unverifiable. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need to be chasing Shitton Falls to know it's a hoax; let's stick to the cities and towns that we're used to. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ALL, per Snow Americans. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Americans[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this phrase is in general use. If it's used at all it seems to be more in a metaphorical way, but not as anything approaching a true classification.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they run along the same lines:

Tan African (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tan Latin American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tan Mexican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tan people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

... discospinster talk 04:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add to that:
Tan Asian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four Winds Interactive[edit]

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

Company with 100 employees would have to be really innovative to be notable. That doesn't seem to be the case here. This article lists no notable products of this company, only notable clients, which is not enough. The article lacks significant independent coverage of this company. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list o' clients probably makes it look worse than it is. Prune the laundry list, and it has a reasonable basis for an article about the company. Possibly consider it a 'stub'. Not a recent drive-by addition, either. References date back to 2008, showing some potential for staying power.Cander0000 (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, what makes it look like it should be deleted is the complete and total absence of even a single reliable independent source WP:GNG. The list of clients is just icing on the cake. The age of the article is irrelevant WP:LONGTIME. Msnicki (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hakko Denshin Ryu[edit]

Hakko Denshin Ryu (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 notable martial art style without sufficient reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete High burden of proof on any martial arts style founded in the last century. --Shii (tock) 06:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 05:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Dwanyewest (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is about an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot martial art. It has no independent sources and gives no reason why it's notable. I don't think being the basis of self defense classes taught at U. of Akron indicates notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly sourced and 5 gnews hits says it all. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shingitai jujitsu[edit]

Shingitai jujitsu (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 notable martial art style without sufficient reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Dwanyewest (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very little coverage in reliable sources.--PinkBull 15:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has no references given. My search found no independent reliable sources about this style/art. Papaursa (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) v/r - TP 00:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Babson[edit]

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

I initially speedied this as an A7, but then changed my mind and thought I should shoot for consensus instead. The issue is that the subject is "notable" primarily for donating her eyes for corneal transplants after her death; to me, that doesn't constitute a very convincing claim that she actually belongs in an encyclopedia.

Further, although there are a couple of references about her, there are many more which are either personal blog entries (failing reliable source rules) or references which merely confirm the existence of various groups and other people mentioned in the article while not mentioning the putative subject at all. For instance, the sentence "The Babson's consented and on May 31,1961, the article "Little Janis" appeared in the paper under Burke's "Under the Hill" column." is referenced with a link which confirms that a journalist named Tim Burke wrote a column titled "Under the Hill", but which fails to provide any confirmation that he ever wrote one word about Janis — which means that the article isn't even as properly referenced as it might seem, either.

So between the fact that genuine references are lacking, and the fact that she only ever actually had maybe 15 minutes of "fame" for an action that wouldn't ordinarily be expected to get someone into an encyclopedia anyway, I don't really see how this is anything but a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:EFFECT. Person is subject of newpaper articles, events, republished books ([103]) "One girl changed so many lives", "Ottawa Sun", April 11, 2011 and fostering continued donations of organs, Dying Wish Lives On, Jessica Young,"The Daily Press", 2009([104]). Bobm217(talk)

I am Janis Babson's sister. Her story appeared in Reader's Digest in 1963 as "The Triumph of Janis Babson" and was later released in full book form as "A Little Girl's Gift" by Lawrence Elliott. It has been issued in 13 languages and read by people around the world, who, to this day, seek out the Babson family for information on Janis and where they can get the books. The family and the author have just released a new edition of "A Little Girl's Gift" and held a media conference in Ottawa on May 27 to launch the book and celebrate the 50 years that have passed since Janis' death and the many lives she has changed in that period. She did not have "15 minutes of fame" and is remembered far beyond the family to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.107.20 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to withdraw the nomination if somebody who doesn't have a conflict of interest with regard to the article subject were to improve the article with enough reliable sourcing to demonstrate sustained and lasting (rather than temporary) notability that's properly verifiable. But I'm afraid that improperly sourced assertions that people still ask for copies of the book 50 years later, by a person who identifies herself as the article subject's sister, simply don't cut it until there's actually independent media coverage (and Facebook pages don't count) about the book being reissued — because in reality, I'm still not convinced that the primary purpose of this article, as written, wasn't to function as an advertisement for the book instead of a neutral article about a person who would ever actually get included in a more traditional and less crowdsourced encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is very notable although the article as it stands needs a lot of re-editing. werldwayd (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be notable based on coverage illustrating a significant effect of her life. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Battelle[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion, page is maintained by WP:SPAs, and was created by one. Separate SPAs have created and maintained related pages like BigTent and Federated Media, but WP is not built for free advertising. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A Google News Archive search shows extensive coverage of this person in a variety of publications regarding several different ventures over quite a few years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the information out there is based on press releases by the article's subject and his enterprises. The article's subject is founder/owner of a web-based promotional firm. Most edits have been by one-article editors or editors focusing on subsidiaries and clients of that firm. Recent editor Crog8 claims to be doing it as a student project (per his/her post on my talk page). Oldtaxguy (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Also fails WP:PROF, since he is little more than an adjunct, despite the impressive-sounding title of "visiting professor." That adds up to little more than a parking sticker on his car for the part-time temporary faculty lot. Also, if he really was such a web-tech heavyweight, he wouldn't be wasting his time here on Wikipedia in violation of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Co-)Founder of both Wired and The Industry Standard - either of these would support notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Co-moderator with Tim O'Reilly (of O'Reilly Media) of the Web 2.0 Summit [105]. PC World calls him with O'Reilly the "head honcho" of the summit, which is "highly exclusive and influential" [106]. He's also co-founding editor of Wired[107], as a journalist, publishes opinion articles in Business Insider [108] and interviews Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook [109], interviewed by National Public Radio as an authority on the search marketplace [110]… Did anyone actually look for sources before this article was put up to AfD? Yes, the guy's in advertising, but he's also apparently an accomplished journalist and an influential guy in terms of tech. Now, the article as it stands is badly written, sounds promotional, and is badly referenced, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. I think I've provided more than enough sources to get started. — Chromancer talk/cont 04:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Spam. We can have this conversation again down the road if a non-promotional article is created with reliable sourcing that clearly supports notability. jæs (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources. They don't amount to much. Most of them mention him only in passing, and are not about him. Most of them are primary, rather than the required secondary. WP:RS in terms of WP:N has not been satisfied. Qworty (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A couple more sources and interviews? And again, I found these in just a few minutes of Google News Archives/Google Books, with very little research. He's interviewed here in the Washington Post: [111] "Federated's Battelle Doubts Bubble in Technology Stocks". The Post is undoubtedly a reliable secondary source per WP:RS, and having his opinion solicited on the future of tech stocks says to me he's a player. He's also interviewed for an entire chapter as an authority on blogging business and architecture in this book: [112]. Bloomberg reviews Battelle's own book The Search positively and calls it required reading here [113]. This doesn't include interviews that he's taken, or glancing mentions that could fill out the article now that we've more than met the requirement for WP:RS of his qualifications. I'm also going to have to dispute the previous sources being primary. A primary source would be something said by John Battelle or his company, such as a press release or direct quotes from his book. Information sourcing from O'Reilly, PC World, TechCrunch or other nonaffiliated news sources is definitely secondary coverage. — Chromancer talk/cont 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to include the bit where Forbes reviews his book positively, cites all his qualifications, and calls his book required reading again: [114]. — Chromancer talk/cont 23:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be notable as an author, and Google News seems to show no scarcity of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Non-admin closure Speedy keep per WP:Speedy keep 1.2.5 "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question" As pointed out by User:Mrschimpf, this article is not about a person. There is no libel, defamation, or nonsense in the article as suggested by nom. v/r - TP 13:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaustubha[edit]

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

Defamation, Libel, Nonsense Markdoe (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Keep Article is about a object in Hinduism, not a person, so nominator's accusations above are invalid. Please restate a proper reason for nomination of this article. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (G11) by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure.. Deor (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Bhandari[edit]

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

It's not an article, it's a resume - a resume with a decided lack of available, adequate sources. It was speedily deleted once by me as a copyright violation, then subsequently restored when the material was released freely. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musical reunions at Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival[edit]

Musical reunions at Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (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 - at previous AFDs articles containing lists of musicians who played at the festival and musicians who played there multiple times were deleted. I can't help but think that this subset of performers is similarly non-notable. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The festival is notable, but this subject is not. This is (fortunately) the last of a huge number of spinoff articles that were created to list performers at the festival under various parameters (year of appearance, return engagements, etc.) Let's put this to rest and leave the main article to stand on its own. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that a supposed reunion at this festival is notable. Resolute 16:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable reunions should be mentioned on the parent article, this topic doesn't seem significant enough for a stand-alone article. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. as G11 by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kovach[edit]

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

Sniff sniff, I smell self-promotional garbage. Not one reference to this fellow in Google News (note that Steve Kovach, a tech journalist, is a different person). —Chowbok ☠ 00:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Jimfbleak under A7. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 13:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Chesterton High School Football[edit]

Chesterton High School 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)

Fails WP:Notability High school sports programs are not automatically notable, although the high schools themselves are. Any sports references should go into an article about the high school itself. Unexplained PROD decline by article creator. Safiel (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the nominator to delete. I note that no article exists about the high school itself, and instead recommend writing an article about it, which can briefly mention the football program. Kansan (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONELAN[edit]

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

Is this company really notable? There are no sources to indicate that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm having trouble even spotting an indication of importance WP:A7. Msnicki (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per A1 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of plants and zombies from plants vs. zombies[edit]

List of plants and zombies from plants vs. zombies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Video game guide with no indication of importance or notability, per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. France3470 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A1, not enough context for this skimpy mess. But I'd vote to keep a well-formed article on this subject under IAR, just because I like the title . . . and because I'm a bad person that way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 27 May 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) 02:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as even if fully fleshed out, I can't see this being an encyclopedic list (I am well aware of the game and know much about it, so I'm aware what's there and not there in the lit). --MASEM (t) 02:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Topham[edit]

Brandon Topham (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 candidate for a recent mayoral election in Tshwana (Pretoria), South Africa, who didn't win. The article creator says on the talk page "now that he lost, the article is a bit pointless". He's received a smattering of coverage during the election and had received a little bit as DA regional chairman before, but I doubt he's notable. Fences&Windows 00:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 00:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 00:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, just like the many, many, many Canadian wannabe politicians who were deleted earlier this month. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J.B. Wing[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that the subject of this self-promoting autobiography satisfies the general notability guideline. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anah Aevia[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable band; on a record label (Selah Records) that does not seem notable Kansan (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. Existing sources are reviews from fan-submitted review sites. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like it fails WP:BAND. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete I'm in that band and I agree there's no need for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.219.172 (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Orenduff[edit]

Justin Orenduff (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 minor league player who ended up never reaching the major leagues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the Pan-American Games note is quasi-convincing, so I'll consider myself neutral on this one right now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further noting that now that he's come out of retirement, I'm fine with the merge suggestion below. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pitched for Team U.S.A. in international competition in 2003. Spanneraol (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Orenduff did play for the U.S. national team in 2003, but it was the collegiate team ([115]). The only competition that the 2003 collegiate team participated in that might be interpreted as an "international amateur or professional competition[s] at the highest level" was the 2003 Pan American Games ([116]). Unfortunately, the way statistics are shown on the USA Baseball website, it's difficult to tell if he actually played in the Pan Am Games, because it only shows players' cumulative season stats, not game-by-game stats. It does say he appeared in 6 of the 29 games the team played that year ([117]). —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. Orenduff pitched a two-hit shutout to lead Team U.S.A. into the semi-finals in the Pan Am games according to this source [118]. Spanneraol (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. But does competing in the Pan Am Games or any of the other international competitions that the USA national collegiate team competed in in 2003 confer notability under the "highest international competition" criterion of WP:ATHLETE? (that's not a leading question; I truly don't know) —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Personally, I would consider it to be so, in part because the members of Team USA (including Orenduff) took the silver medal that year. That's a pretty prominent award. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I went ahead and added a medals table to his article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have raised the question of whether Pan Am Games participants are notable at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), as I believe that is where the policy should be asked/discussed. Please do not interpret this as a move to delay or otherwise circumvent the AfD process. I abstain from !voting in this discussion and will decide on an appropriate action (another AfD, DRV, or leave it alone) if/when consensus on interpretation of policy is reached. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:47, 16 May 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) 00:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janwar Rajput[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation in 2009 (WP:V), written in a confusing, peacocky and unencyclopedic style that does not make much sense as a whole. A Google Books search indicates that this is or was indeed an Indian Rajput, and as such likely notable, but the current content is so useless that the article would need to be rewritten from scratch, or possibly redicted to some related other article.  Sandstein  18:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 May 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) 00:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in gnews and gbooks has passing mentions. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nominator indicates this is "likely to be notable," as THIS ARTICLE from the Kashmir News Network website further somewhat indicates. Is it a bad article? Yes. That's not what's being decided here, however. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Janwar Rajput gets one mention in whole article. where is there evidence of significant coverage? LibStar (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing here worth salvaging - horrible prose written by what I assume are mostly non-native speakers. "Barier Sah then in 1414 took up his residence in village Ikauna in Bahraich and thus became the founder of the famous house, which has given the rulers to many estates in the districts of Bahraich and Gonda.KARNVEER SINGH , GRAND SON OF SRI PUTTU SINGH TELLS ABOUT THE BRAVITY OF THEIR ANCESTORS.THEY ARE BASICALLY TOO AGGRESSIVE IN NATURE, BUT ALSO A GOOD FRIEND" pretty much sums this up. Claims that the article can be improved (such as the opinion expressed by Carrite above) run contrary to the fact that this has been tagged as unreferenced for over a year with no attention paid, making these opinions seem completely blind to reality, more of a mantra than anything approaching a valid argument, especially considering the AfD itself has run for nearly half a month and not a single edit has been made since the nom's AfD tagging. Counting back fifteen edits places us at 2009. That's not a lot of passing activity. Perhaps, counter-intuitive though it may seem, a redlink may end up inspiring someone to create a decent article. One can claim this is improvable all they want, but the history shows otherwise. Tags have been tried and failed, enough's enough. Badger Drink (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskriti School, Pune[edit]

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

Does not indicate whether it is a high school, middle school, or what. Does not seem to pass the General Notability Guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see "affiliated with" as proof that it is a secondary school. It could also be an elementary or middle school that works with the board to further educational needs. It would need to be explicitly stated... but I did not find anything about it being a secondary school on the website. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The school's admissions page confirms that it is a K–10 school as the article states. That's enough for me to vote keep as a high school. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 May 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, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything on the admissions page. Could it be on shown on a script? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital signage product comparison[edit]

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

Created in 2009 by an apparent WP:SPA, many more SPAs have since flocked here and laid claim (and probably more than a handful of well-intentioned editors doing cleanup/maintenance). Very few, if any, of these products are notable, WP is not a directory, nor a catalog, none of the info is referenced, the list goes on. There is no amount of modification or annotation that will make this topic meet inclusion criteria. It is an impressive collection of spam, but it is spam nonetheless. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a (comparison) list article. Does it need a rename?Curb Chain (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be included in a comparison article, the entry needs a WP page (see office suite for an example), otherwise it just turns into a big spam/link party. This page is all spam, written by the people who make the programs (literally, look at the history). There is nothing of value to anyone who is not shopping for these non-notable products, and that is not the sort of material we want to be hosting. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:02, 26 May 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, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of these products appear notable. The combined list or table of them is also not found in any secondary or independent source. It's simply a copy of [119] from AMD's site, which is primary source for this article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's allowable to create a list or table that is not found elsewhere, c.f., WP:TABLES#When tables are appropriate, especially the sports and discography examples. We're allowed to arrange any facts we like into an article; we just can't synthesize anything new except the arrangement as explained at WP:SYN. Msnicki (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have an article on Digital signage, which appears to offer appropriate WP:NPOV encyclopedic coverage of the underlying subject. If each of the products in this table had associated articles establishing their individual notabilities, a table comparing them would make sense. But those articles don't exist and I'm not prepared to assume any of them are notable. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion WP:NOTADVERTISING and it's not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Msnicki (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardi Framework[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a software package that contains no reliable sources indicating any notability. PROD was removed by single-purpose account after addition of "references" that are primarily dead links and do not address notability concerns. Kinu t/c 17:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHello ! The links have been rectified. Leonardi Framework is not a single purpose entity. In fact reference to its inclusion in a larger research academic community supported by the W3C have been added. Previous poorly working links (unfortunate redirects on the part of the source Internet sites which did not handle Wikipedia standard links) have been removed. Please consider the page Leonardi Framework for inclusion in Wikipedia. Respectfully, Kristeen2011 (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Kristeen2001[reply]
Comment The article still lacks citations to reliable sources. I see that some external links were added to some uses of this framework but it's still not clear how this subject might meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has no inline citations at all, and three external links. Two of those links are to the Leonardi website. The third gives brief mention of the framework, in rather cryptic note form. Google searches have failed to produce any significant coverage in reliable sources. In short, no evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment  Here is the Google translation of the French Wikipedia page for Leonardi, here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Independent coverage does not need to be in English, but in this case no significant independent coverage has been presented in any language. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did the previous respondent look at the references on the French wiki page?  I see nothing in the !vote to show this.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Errm, what references? There aren't any. Perhaps you mean the external links, including one to a download site, one to a page which links to a download of a "demo" and makes no other mention of Leonardi, etc. There is just one external link which could be regarded as a source, but even if it is a reliable source (which is not clear to me) it certainly does not constitute substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mottville Township Cemetery[edit]

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

There is no assertion of independent notability, and searches for information on this turn up nothing except that the cemetery exists. That means that this article fails WP:GNG. Being the final resting place for a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient does not confer notability to the cemetery, as notability can't be inherited. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, as there are no sources which make more than a passing mention of the cemetery. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  As per WP:Five pillars, Wikipedia incorporates elements of gazeteers.  WP:Five pillars is "fundamental principles", while WP:GNG is a subset of a guideline.  Reliable national databases identify this geo-location, and we know that government-run cemeteries in the US have excellent maps and well-defined property boundaries. Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We also require that the subjects of our articles have notability to warrant an article. This article does not state anything more than it exists and the name of one person buried there. Reliable databases also list the properly boundaries for my parents' house, but merely existing is not a criteria for article inclusion. Imzadi 1979 → 05:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but reverting as the nominator did at M-103 (Michigan highway) with the edit comment, "<n>on-notable 'landmark'", does not show that nominator's priority here, which in the preceding response includes using the word "we" without references, is improving the encyclopedia.  Editors aren't going to find Barber Island discussed on the front page of the New York Times, but people in Australia gave it a name because they thought that it was "worthy of notice".  Cartographers (secondary, third-party independent sources) give us significant coverage of the borders of this island on maps.  I suspect an underlying reason this cemetery has been nominated is because Mottville Township only has 2000 people, and it would help if the sextant would get a map on the webpage; but this cemetery is no less notable than any other government-run cemetery.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't Arlington National Cemetery, and just being a plot of government property does not equate to notability. At most, two sentences about this cemetery (it exists; it has a Medal of Honor recipient bured there) can be added to Mottville Township, Michigan, but that doesn't mean that the subject even warrants a redirect to the township article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like a run-of-the-mill cemetery. Dough4872 00:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, or a directory of everything that exists. Edison (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_27&oldid=1142637196"