Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 9

< 8 October	10 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle control frame[edit]

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

This is a difficult case. I get a fair number of GHits but it's not clear how good they are. Damning, in my eyes, is the absolute lack of any book hits. If the article is to be believed, this is an extremely basic and important component of hang gliders; it is simply beyond belief that no book discusses it. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A scan of the article leaves me holding my nose at the smell of WP:SYNTH. Appears that the author said "hang gliders often have this triangle part of their structure, it must be something important" and ran from there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an extremely long and very badly written and referenced article with very few real refs cited and a lot of text that appears to be at best a WP:SYNTHESIS of what few real refs there are, trying to stretch facts to fit the subject or just made up. The parts about Lilienthal's gliders having a triangle control frame, including diagrams that are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole when it seems to be clearly not the case, are especially worrisome. The topic is worth mentioning in Wikipedia, but should just be a paragraph in the Hang gliding article and not a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope the article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant really add to previous summary but it only looks like its worth a passing mention in Hang gliding. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SYNTH out-and-out, when the first "reference" is to a question asked in the correspondance pages of Flight about monoplane stability and neither of the words triangle or frame appeared then you know something is not right. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TCF is only used by Joefaust. All hits at google referring to websites from him or forums where he had posted and I don't found an independent source for the term or acronym. I searched a popular hanggliding forum (hanggliding.org) for the term TCF and found no post which was not from Joefaust. If that was a commonly used term in hang gliding someone should expect a frequent use of it, but - wrong! 93.104.28.217 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the portions I looked at were either incomprehensible or felt like original research. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the control frame of a hang glider may be worth breaking out as an article, and probably deserves a longer mention in the article on the subject, but this is simply incomprehensible and doesnt show any clear sign that its not pure original research. see also Category:Deaths by paragliding, Category:Deaths by hang gliding, Hang gliding fatalities involving hang gliders with TCF, Paragliding fatalities, notability unclear.76.234.122.2 (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There seems to be too much original and synthesised research. Also, it this kind of thing were to be notable, I would expect to it discussed in books. As it is, one source I found mentions a "triangle-shaped control frame"; the use of language suggests that the frame has no official or commonly used name, and the writer is making one up for demonstrative purposes. Thus, a 'Triangle Control Frame' does not seem to exist as a commonly held concept, but just a way of describing a frame. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied. Boldly Userfying; Lets not bite well intentioned editors by nominating an in-progress article for deletion two days after creation. (non-admin closure) Tothwolf (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Machine design in game engines[edit]

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

Student essay / original research — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close without prejudice to further action. Another IEP student project, and the problems there are broader than AfD is appropriate to deal with. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Video game development without a merge. This article would need a complete re-write to be even minimally acceptable and it contains nothing that isn't covered more comprehensively and coherently in Video game development. Does it need an AfD to do a redirect like that? Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has been notified to WikiProject Video games and WikiProject Computing. - Voceditenore (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LizaMoon[edit]

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

This malware caused a brief scare back in the spring but does not appear to have any lasting notability as it is apparently quite easy to keep it off your personal computer even if you had contact with an infected website. It got a bit of press at the time, it died off quickly, and there is no indication that it had any real impact in the field of internet security. While it sounds impressive that in supposedly infected a million websites, that is in reality only a very small portion of the entire web. An earlier proposed deletion was declined by a user who apparently felt that them looking at the page proved it was notable [1] Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the record, I created the article. There are loads of independent articles about this all over the web, during the period of the outbreak. Computer viruses are not generally long-lived; the notability here comes not from the number of infections and speed at which it spread. For a virus or worm to make popular press is unusual in the first place, and the extent of coverage is self evident, IMO. — brighterorange (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic appears to pass WP:GNG, per several reliable sources in the article and those available by internet searches. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 23:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have mentioned WP:NOTNEWS in my nomination. I am aware that it got significant press attention right after it came to light, but that attention quickly faded as news outlets realized they were making a big deal out of malware that only a moron who gave it permission four times to invade their PC would ever get infected by it. A flash in the pan that was all sizzle and no steak, and a panic that was forgotten as quickly as quickly as it came on. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to insult people like that. Obviously thousands of people were infected by this, and you shouldn't be calling them "morons". Dream Focus 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you give an unknown piece of software that randomly approaches you on the internet permission, not once but four times, to come on inside your memory and make itself at home you are a moron. You could substitute "idiot" or "dumbass" in there if you prefer, but anyone who fell for this at this late dat in history is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per my above remarks regarding NOTNEWS, all the sources currently being used are from the first two weeks of April of this year. I have yet to see any substantive mention of this malware from any date before or after that period, and nothing whatsoever to indicate it had any lasting impact in the field of internet security. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very Notable, It is important to keep the public informed on scareware, I lost a laptop due to a similar virus program, this article has references and citations and is long enough, I feel it is a signifigant problem, that should be noted. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to/create List of malware. Worth mentioning, but lack of long-lasting effects means a standalone page is unneccessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Airways Flights[edit]

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

WP:AV don't list airline flights. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the numbers will be subject to reassigment, and really, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (although this is not a "long and sprawling" list of statistics, it lacks "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader") and per Imzadi1979's rationale above. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 16:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Home 2011 (Scientific research project)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Appears to be an elaborate hoax. External web pages point to a tripod site, a Hartford Courant wedding announcement that has nothing to do with this alleged project, and I can't find much proof that "Envirotech E.A. LTD" exists from ghits other than links that seem to be involved with the hoax. Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This project is no hoax. Interesting opinion, but there are colleges, news organizations, and honor societies that verify the work done at that project. The company Envirotech is out of Australia. It no longer exists after the science research ended January 1, 2011 when the funding ran out. The project ran for 32 years, it is no hoax, believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.97.31 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 72.221.97.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Which colleges? Which news organizations? Which honor societies? If Envirotech had a web site, it'd be archived at the Internet Archive, can you provide a link? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that above IP edited the same files that the author of the above article did, so it's almost certainly the same user. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article, but I am not affiliated with the project. I became interested in it as a highlight of Connecticut when I saw them demonstrate their technology on TV. I am interested in Connecticut history. Project Home 2011 is well known in the Northeast. The COI tag is not true, and the information in the article is completely true, so the other tag is very innapropriate. There should be a tag requesting more sources to be contributed as people find them. The colleges concur with the project, and the project is mentioned in print in the Who's Who 2009 volume, which I reserched to get that information. That alone proves the legitamacy of the project. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Tags {{orphan}} and {{local}} were added to this article as they apply based on this discussion. They were removed by other users who have their own tags.Kimbookworm (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (Truthfulness verified, could use additional links to clear up some confusion. Project was a big event mainly local to the Northeast U.S. area.) Kimbookworm (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as complete junk. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as elaborate hoax. There is no such Australian company as "Envirotech E.A. LTD", and if there was, it wouldn't "select two twelve-year-old students ... to study the physics of relativity." -- 202.124.72.213 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just so happens that there was an Envirotech E.A. LTD company in Australia, and they did indeed select the two genius level kids in 1979 for the project. Decisions should be based on facts, not personal speculation. My research for the article was extensive and I found records from the department of education for the project where it started out as a science project for gifted kids at first, but after a few years, as the selected kids who attended voluntarily after school, began coming up with some interesting concepts and engineering designs, the company in Australia organized a fully funded research project supported by investors. Records of the existance of this company are at Springfield College in Massachusetts where they wire transferred $15,000 for the two students' educations, and at Social Security Administration, where the company was getting information for one of the student's foster family. Based on the facts, that this information is true and verifiable at said sources and sources given in the article, and that this project has signifficance in society, it belongs. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, there was no Envirotech E.A. LTD. But feel free to show us an Australian web site or Australian address for this alleged Australian company. In fact, there seems to be no WP:RS supporting anything in this article. -- 202.124.75.11 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs condensing I heard of Project Home 2011. They designed some robots that can hover above the ground while studying the nature of quantum particles. They did come up with equations for ion barriers, and did a demonstration on 1/1/2011 when it ended. I was able to find out from Springfield College that there was a company called Envirotech E.A. LTD that paid for courses for the two research colleagues in the article in 2001, and they gave me a lead to follow where I found proof of the existance of the company and the project, at a Notary Republic in downtown Springfield Mass, that has a legal record of a Jackie James from a company called Envirotech E.A. LTD based in Australia, notarizing documents on behalf of John and Matt Mitch, in 2002. Therefore the project is proven to not be a hoax, and that truthfulness tag should be removed. The content of the article should be condensed. -Kimbookworm 38.126.110.7 (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 38.126.110.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. This is all very amusing, and I got a good laugh out of "Matt's and John's polybit processor ... treats the entire memory as one byte made up of trillions of bits instead of trillions of bytes made up of 8 bits each. The result is that their polybit processor invention can execute an entire program in one step." But seriously, why wasn't this article speedied? -- 202.124.75.11 (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think it is describing a computer that can run all the lines of a program at the same time instead of one at a time. I can understand it. It just sounds like a different way of allocating memory. There is nothing hard to believe about that. All the more reason to invite more sources about it. I agree there isn't too much in the references about their computer. The TV appearances were more focused on the maglev technology. I think it should be noted that more information about the computer is needed, or perhaps delete the section about the computer as long as the references about that aspect of the project is lacking. The existing references and what they substantiate do check out. Their press release does mention the computer. -Kimbookworm 38.126.110.7 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent sources; the link to the Hartford Courant is in fact a wedding announcement for one of the principals, who put the name of this "project" into the announcement. Even presupposing it isn't a very elaborate hoax, there's an obvious failure of WP:GNG; the world has not heard of this "project."
As to the article being speedied, it already had been, back in January, when the creator of the current version attempted to put it up.
Turning to the SPA above who refers to a Springfield "Notary Republic," you're in luck, because I'm a notary public who was myself certified in Springfield, MA. You wouldn't mind telling us why officers of an Australian company would be in Springfield getting their documents notarized, or how it happened that this notary would have kept records of people for whom he did not actually notarize documents, back before notaries in Massachusetts were required to keep logs? Come to that, would you let us know which notary was the one to whom you spoke, so I can ask him or her myself? I don't mind. Ravenswing 15:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, but with revision ongoing:~~ If you are a notary in the Springfield area, you could easily verify that information. The other user did say the notary republic she found that information was in downtown Springfield and gave the year to look up in the log. This project existed, that is for certain and they have invented technology. It has enough to remain included, but can be built on as more information is found. When I contributed a proposed article on this work in January, the reason for deletion was because it was not researched well enough and did not have enough sources. I was told to do more work finding more information on the project and re-submit it. I did. I have also contributed other interesting facts about Connecticut. I did verify the credentials of the project with Asnuntuck College where the scientists studied and the awards they recieved. Also the tuition was paid to Asnuntuck via a trust fund from Project Home 2011. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You seem to be confused as to what a notary "republic" [sic] does. The sole remit of a notary public, these days, is to notarize documents. They are not keepers of public records. That being said, Asnuntuck is a junior college, extremely unlikely to produce significant scientific research - for example, it only teaches five courses in physics, three of them introductory - or notable scientific awards. But by all means ... if you claim to have "verified the credentials" of your project with Asnuntuck, would you mind telling me with whom? I'm happy to contact the person myself. Ravenswing 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I figured that a notary republic legalized documents under oath, stamped the document with an official legal seal, and recorded the registration of the document permanently. Would that be strong evidence of the existance of the organization, Envirotech, and it's administrator, Jackie James, if nothing else? The two research members grew up in Enfield, Connecticut so it would make sense that they would choose their college to be in their home town with their friends. The project was not sponsored by Asnuntuck. The project paid the college tuition of the students for whatever college they chose to go to. When I was searching libraries for the Who's Who 2009 volume to verify that Project Home 2011 was mentioned in the text along with one of the colleagues of the project, I also found that the 2 colleagues were accepted to the University of Connecticut, University of Hartford, Central Connecticut State University and University of New Haven. There are probably other Universities as well. They were accepted to these major Universities in 2010. They could be continuing their work as we speak. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I strongly urge you to examine some of the policies and guidelines that have been linked to this AfD. Specific criteria for retention must be met, and the bar is set a great deal higher than merely "existing." Nonetheless, you and others have stated several times now that you've "verified" this information and that with various vague people, but you've been curiously resistant so far to identify the people to whom you've spoken.
As far as that goes, to which "Who's Who" are you referring? Given the dates involved, do you mean Who's Who Among Students in American Universities & Colleges, a quasi-self-submitting volume? That's relatively meaningless - I was in a Who's Who myself in 1977, and I assure you that the slender few lines in 6-pt type among 30,000 other "selectees" conferred no notability. Honestly, no one here is swallowing any of this. Ravenswing 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of sourcing: the so-called "scientific paper" is a proposal to present a paper at a conference--not only is a conference presentation not proof of notability, but the , according to the source, the paper has not yet been accepted--or even submitted. Nothing else that possibly is a usable source at all. The arguments for keeping are all based on mere existence, which is not notability . As far as I can tell, the article is a very possible candidate for G11, entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While not a fringe theory exactly, the idea that someone gave two 12-year-olds perfectly good money as a decade-long subsidy to build flying robot supercomputer cyclotrons or whathaveyou, is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG) -- certainly not adduced here, Grand Army of the No-Tar Republic notwithstanding. EEng (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Here's a link to what might be called their research update. Apparently the real project was restoration of a Trans Am.[2][reply]

Wonder if this is as much of a WP:BULLSHIT deal as the rest of this nonsense is? Ravenswing 22:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote to keep this article. If any references are not good enough, then delete them, but don't delete the whole article. Many people searching for information on this work would find links to any sources other users can find and add very useful.68.229.87.140 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 68.229.87.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I have heard of Project Home 2011. There are plenty of programs for gifted kids that are sponsored by philanthropists and orginizations. The info says that the project didn't turn into a full fledged research project with larger investor funding until after the 2 boys came of age and were doing collegiate level work. It was just a regular science program for above average kids when it started and the boys were 12.72.209.14.170 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 72.209.14.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This article needs some neatening up, but it should be kept. If someone needs to research these works, or the backgrounds of the scientists, it can be found with helpful links to other sources, which there are many impartial sources that have acknowledged their work. Just the fact that television programs featured them is notable. by Todd68.224.201.158 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 68.224.201.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This article is about a research group that contributed to science, it constitutes a mention on Wikipedia. That scientific journal was just an abstract from the print version they used for their submission to that conference/seminar. The printed scientific disertation has the equations they came up with for making an ion barrier. Their big bang theory is an interesting concept. They don't claim to have proven that, it is just based on their research into physics and relativity. That is what the project was set out to explore. After over 2 decades of working on that, engineering and machining of the parts and constructing equipment, I would expect they would be good at what they do and would end up with some kind of contribution to science. I would not call any research colleague who studies quantum physics and engineering as impossible. They were funded by investors for that long, they were obviously working on something important. The researchers were both 44 when the project completed in early 2011. They were not kids then.68.15.56.26 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 68.15.56.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The YouTube demonstration video has been "removed by the user." -- 202.124.74.246 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Project Home 2011 is both notable and historic. Television programs featured the project, and the names of the members of it along with the name of the project are in print recognized in the Who's Who in American Colleges organization which is a very notable organization that has been around for nearly a century. I have done research on this project in bits and pieces over the past nine months and have found that Project Home 2011 is worthy and encyclopedic. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who's Who is a scam, and fake biographies have been published in it. What's more, there is a rather obvious case of either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT going on here, considering the unregistered IP addresses who are "voting" in favor of this article can be geotraced to the Connecticut/Rhode Island/New York area. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G3 criteria for blatant hoax and block all WP:SOCKs. Polyamorph (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate to keep this article I would like to add a comment here. This article couldn't be further from a 'hoax'. It was a real research project and to cry hoax is very bias personal opinion, not to mention not true. If that is the rational for suggesting deleting it, then considering this is nowhere near any kind of hoax, that justifies it as shouldn't be deleted. An article should not be deleted based on untrue opinions, that goes for any article. I am sure Wikipedia has a rule for articles not being deleted based on untrue personal speculation. I happened to have seen the project participants in this article on TV myself, and I know it is no hoax. The research project has been around for a while, also.

To offer my own input for the previous comment, Probably the reason most of the comments here are from the new england area is because that is where project home 2011 was worked on. That is also the general area the spot on public television was. I'm surprised project home 2011 wasn't anywhere on wikipedia in the first place. It does not deserve a delete nomination.

The Who's Who credential is not something anyone can make themselves. It is hard to get into. The school the student attends has to nominate them out of a small handful of the student body.The school submits the student information, and the information is verified by the school before they put their reputation on the line. The documentation in the Who's Who honor society is a reliable source of verified information. It qhalifies.

The guys that did the work in that project, John Obik and Matt Mitch U. were in the Enfield Press newspaper for Project Home 2011, around 10 years ago and were given awards at the college when they were inducted into both phi theta kappa and whos who honor societies. They are pretty well known in a positive way in the area.76.28.16.10 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — 76.28.16.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: And none of you sock/meatpuppets can prove any of it, can you? You can't provide valid sources, you can't provide the names of the people you claim "verified" your information, you can't provide any information about the alleged public TV program, you can't provide any information about these alleged "awards," and so much of your allegations aren't actually credible - are you seriously claiming, for instance, that a man in his 40s would be listed in one of the student Who's Who scam mill books in 2009?
Look, seriously, folks, I implore you. If you don't know how Wikipedia works - and whether there's just the one of you with a dynamic IP or you've gotten your friends to chime in, you've demonstrated that you don't - please check out WP:PILLAR and learn. Please understand that no knowledgeable editor is convinced by your arguments, and that there is a standard of proof for your claims you haven't even attempted to meet. Obviously you've clung to this "Project Home 2011" (and if it's a 32-year-project, why is it '2011?') out of some misguided attempt at convincing the world that you're Very Important. By all means carry on ... but you can't carry on in Wikipedia. Ravenswing 16:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in agreement with everything Ravenswing says. In addition even if it wasn't a blatant hoax, which it is since the technology described in the article is WP:Complete Bollocks, it also fails key wikipedia policies on notability, verifiability, reliable sources, what Wikipedia is not, Original research and Conflict of interest. It's clear you have been trolling/promoting this "project" elsewhere on internet forums, but it won't be tolerated on wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a heap o' crap. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a long-standing hoax, previously known on the Internet as "Project Home 2010" and other names going back a decade or so. -- 202.124.74.143 (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a number of reasons I listed in the article's talk page that identify it as a decade-old hoax. Devil Master (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for those inclined to delete (as I am)[edit]

May I suggest that those of us on the "delete" side of the debate ~~just ignore~~ simply not bother responding to further blather urging keep? -- unless it really points to new evidence, of course. We can use our time more profitably elsewhere, and the closing admin isn't going to be fooled, so there's no need to keep feeding these trolls by responding to their foolishness. EEng (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my original statement sounded like no one should read further input on the keep side. What I meant to suggest (now corrected above) is that there's no need to respond, unless they actually say something new. EEng (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I have to point out the following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikebeckbeck. Polyamorph (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good, definitely overdue. Ravenswing 09:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only asked ONE person I know to help me dig up information for my article. I did not ask anyone to join this discussion. Many people in the general area this research project was held know about it. If word got around that some people here were contesting whether that project made the achievements it made and wanted to speak out about it, was not of my direction. This is a good part of Connecticut residents who have made achievements, and the article is contributed in good faith. It ought to be included.Mikebeckbeck (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a little bias. asking to only look at your point of view and no one elses, despite the constructiveness of the input? It is supposed to be a neutral point of view. I myself and some other users have pointed out some valid points supporting the inclusion of this article. Some of them I didn't even find out. Quoting from Wikipedia's notability requirement page, this article qualifies, ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." The planet forward TV show link and the mention in print in the notable organization, Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities are two references that establish notability. There are more that I am sure can be added over time as users find them.

"A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article."

The other users seem to be in agreeance that this is a good article. It may need some minor adjustments, however it does relate to other wikipedia pages, such as Asnuntuck College, Who's Who honor society, Phi Theta Kappa, etc. Any leads given here are simple to follow, such as notaries or persons to speak with at the colleges given, to inquire if indeed they recall said engineering students that they were aware of were involved in a scientific research project, can be verified. ~~I did the research and found all that information in the article. 20:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebeckbeck (talk • contribs)~~

Comment I suggest including this article in Wikipedia but with revisions made that give a description of the project what they did and who did it, including the sources that back it up. Paragraphs that don't have sources to back it up, such as the computer they invented, although I believe it is true, should be ommitted until sources for that aspect are found. The section about the maglev device should stay, because there are reliable second party sources, such as the tv show, that specificaly note the project for that. All references, no matter how strong or weak should all stay included as they back up the information.-Kimbookworm38.126.110.7 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on the Who's Who among students in American Universities and Colleges reference in the article, referring to this Wikilink at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_Who which Wiki users have approved the content of this article on the Who's Who national honor society, states that "Who's Who (or "Who is Who") is the title of a number of reference publications, generally containing concise biographical information on a particular group of people. The title is also used as an expression meaning a collection or group of noted persons; as in the sentence, "The actors in the film were a Who's Who of the great American comedians of the time".

The title "Who's Who" is in the public domain, and thousands of Who's Who compilations of varying scope and quality have been published by various authors and publishers. The oldest and best known is the annual British publication Who's Who, a reference work on contemporary prominent people"

Just the fact that not only are the people of this project acknowledged in the book as notable people, but Project Home 2011 is also noted in this honor society's print, establishes by definition on the Wikipedia page describing the Who's Who National honor society, that this science organization and it's members are notable people. The reference gives the information about the book, and it is the real Who's Who book, not one of the 'scam' versions where people's autobiographies are in them. This project is honored in the real honor society, where inclusions were provided by the state colleges, not the students themselves. It is an unrelated party acknowledging these students and this project and thus they are notable on these grounds. It required these people and this project to make an achievement and contribution to society in a notable way to be honored by the Who's Who honors organization. The members of this project have also been inducted into other well respected international honor societies, such as Phi Theta Kappa as well. Kimbookworm (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Comments by confirmed sockpuppets (Mikebeckbeck = Kimbookworm) have been struck out by Ravenswing and EEng: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikebeckbeck. -- 202.124.72.31 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso[edit]

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

Duplicate of "OPERA Experiment" and "OPERA Neutrino Anomaly" Ajoykt (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A10, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are not duplicates. CNGS is the CERN facility located in France, the OPERA experiment is Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare facility located in Italy, two distinct facilities and these two articles are clearly different. The OPERA neutrino anomaly time of flight is a new article that was recently seperated away from the OPERA article due to the interest in the faster than speed of light results recently there, they are three separate subjects and I fail to see the initiating editors belief they are duplicates. Yes the three articles share a a commonality in the neutrino beam itself but that's where it ends. One should also note that CNGS complex also feeds other experiments and facilities, so the idea of combining the CNGS and the OPERA article is out as well. I would suggest a re-write if the initiating editor has concerns but not a deletion of two/threee clearly notable articles, or if the it's having three articles I would suggest re-merging the Opera and it's results article. ^Khukri 05:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both OPERA experiment and CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso have as their topics a scientific experiment, a collaboration between CERN and LNGS, to detect neutrino oscillations in a neutrino beam generated at CERN and beamed to LNGS. Are you saying these are two different experiments that just happen to be very similar? The articles are not verbatim duplicates, but they appear to cover the same topic, although OPERA experiment has more on the instrument used at the receiving side for detection. --Lambiam 13:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CNGS isn't in experiment per se, it is to all intents and purposes a neutrino production facility sending them through the crust to the experiments such as opera, icarus etc. Though there are small side experiments carried out within the CNGS cavern, such as testing for single event failures of electronics etc, but these aren't really that notable. CERN provides the neutrinos LNGS measure them, it's an agreement / experiment across physics organisations. ^Khukri 14:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but then the lead is misleading: "CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso (CNGS) is a physics experiment that is part of the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) accelerator complex at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland." The CNGS website distinguished between the CNGS project, and the CNGS facility, other combinations qualified by "CNGS" being CNGS beam and CNGS target. The term "CNGS" is mostly used as a qualifier and only very infrequently in a stand-alone fashion. Perhaps a better start is: "The CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso (CNGS) project is a physics project that uses the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) accelerator ~~complex~~ at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland." --Lambiam 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Khukri. — Pt _(T) 14:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I will take out the deletion tag, per your explanation. As to remerging the anomaly article with the OPERA article, that has to be discussed on those pages. Since the anomaly article is bigger, remerging would skew the OPERA article. Ajoykt (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you should do is strike-through your deletion rationale above; an uninvolved editor should then close the discussion. --Lambiam 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ethnic slurs by ethnicity. Tone 14:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic slurs of Jews[edit]

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

Delete – Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Fly by Night (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete or re-write with encyclopedic content I could see a list like this that also gives some encyclopedic information about history, etymology, and usage and discusses the social and historical importance of anti-semetic slurs. This information could either be here or at anti-Semitic, however. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As noted above Anti-Semitic could have a list like this, but as part of the article, not a stand-alone list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I mean, really. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect content to either List of religious slurs or List of ethnic slurs. Singling out the Jews with their "own" list of slurs is going too far. IZAK (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expandable; several of the items are notable in their own right, and therefore a list of them is appropriate. The others probably are also & the articles should be written. . A list of unpleasant things is as encyclopedic as a list of pleasant ones. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—per DGG, as well as wp statement on standalone lists of words: Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_words. this one clearly meets WP:GNG as the subject of the list has been discussed in multiple rs as a topic in itself. see for instance:

Geoffrey Hughes (2006). An encyclopedia of swearing: the social history of oaths, profanity, foul language, and ethnic slurs in the English-speaking world. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 272–. ISBN 978-0-7656-1231-1. Retrieved 10 October 2011.
Philip Herbst (15 June 1997). The color of words: an encyclopaedic dictionary of ethnic bias in the United States. Intercultural Press. pp. 133–. ISBN 978-1-877864-97-1. Retrieved 10 October 2011.

note that the last one is a reliable source suggesting that a dictionary of words related to ethnic bias is an encyclopedic topic, also the link points at "kike," but the rest of them are in there too, not only defined, as in a dictionary, but discussed, as in an encyclopedia. i only looked for english sources here, as there were enough to make it clear that the subject is notable.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (back) into List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity or List of ethnic slurs, or put any new content into anti-semitism. However, i suspect there is nothing new here. By my searching, this is the only group singled out at this time for its own list article of slurs. since its nowhere near the largest list (the only criteria i can think of for starting to consider breakaway lists), theres a distinct POVness to this existing here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Through the close might be controversial as OSUHEY made several legal threats, the article has no problem like copyright, so I am closing this discussion. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Boggs[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per a contested G5 deletion. Article was created by banned user OSUHEY, and every significant edit to this article was made by him, or one of his socks. I am Neutral. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 21:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OSUHEY is a banned and blocked plagiarizer/sockpuppet. He has also made several legal threats and even contacted me under the pseudonym Senator-emeritus Jim Finke. Marcus Qwertyus 21:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Person is notable per WP:POLITICIAN, reliable sources, and common sense, despite the status of the user who created this innocuous stub, which ought to be expanded rather than deleted. In an article about an Ohio political scandal published today, the Toledo Blade wrote, "In 1997, Ross Boggs, then the highest-ranking Democrat in the Ohio House, predicted that Mr. Voinovich and the Republican leadership would pay a steep price for the takeover and politicization of the bureau" here. The article includes a photo of Ross Boggs, who is indisputably notable and remains in the news after his retirement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is nothing wrong with the article and deleting it would do nothing to benefit the encyclopedia. The subject is clearly notable and the article passes all policies. One concern is that the original creator persistently violated copyright but I can't believe this two sentence stub is a copyright violation (even if the content meets the threshold of originality for copyright protection). Editors may revert edits made by banned users, but they are not required to do so. I should point out that OSUHEY was not banned at the time he wrote the article, merely indefinitely blocked (he was only banned as a result of this discussion in August 2011). Hut 8.5 22:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is a very bad idea to nominate articles such as this for deletion. Wikipedia would be incomplete without biographies about subjects such as this, and there is no inappropriate content. Peacock (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since G5 criterion no longer applies to this article (per edits by Cullen328), and as the article is fine, I am closing this discussion. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Core[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per a contested G5 deletion. Article was created by banned user OSUHEY, and every significant edit to this article was made by him, or one of his socks. I am Neutral. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OSUHEY is a banned and blocked plagiarizer/sockpuppet. He has also made several legal threats and even contacted me under the pseudonym Senator-emeritus Jim Finke. Marcus Qwertyus 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person was notable and meets WP:POLITICIAN despite the status of the editor who created the article. Here's an obituary from the Toledo Blade that gives the basic outlines of his life, and many more references in reliable sources are readily available. There is no need to delete a brief article about a notable topic just because the original creator of the article may have misbehaved. Just edit the article to improve it and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is nothing wrong with the article and deleting it would do nothing to benefit the encyclopedia. The subject is clearly notable and the article passes all policies. One concern is that the original creator persistently violated copyright but I don't think there are any copyright issues with this article. Editors may revert edits made by banned users, but they are not required to do so. I should point out that OSUHEY was not banned at the time he wrote the article, merely indefinitely blocked (he was only banned as a result of this discussion in August 2011). Hut 8.5 22:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The G5 criterion no longer applies because I have substantively edited the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is demonstrably notable and meets the relevant criteria. For my part, I've never been enthusiastic about G5, when it is applied to articles which would pass muster without notice or comment were they created by any other user. Ravenswing 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even in the absence of recent additions that clearly negate the G5, I think it is a very bad idea to nominate articles such as this for deletion. Wikipedia would be incomplete without biographies about subjects such as this, and there is no inappropriate content. Peacock (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hint: Lots of bold, and large font, and caps are most often a tell-tale sign of the weakness of an argument. T. Canens (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caiyad Phahad[edit]

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

As I wrote on the previous deletion debate before this self-promotional page was inappropriately moved to mainspace:

The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce a high quality encyclopedia; it is neither a social networking site nor a resume service and we are not here to boost [the author's] ego.

Vanispamcruftisement written by a non-notable journalist. Most of the references given are not reliable sources, and/or are not actually about the article subject as required by WP:BIO. MER-C 05:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oppose userfication, see comment below per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The links for "Caiyad Phahad won Inter School Cricket Tournament Title for his school", "Caiyad Phahad Graduated from IQRA University", and "Caiyad Phahad Success News from Institute of Business and Technology" from Daily Jang are all dead links. Judging by their titles, they fail WP:ROUTINE, which states inter alia:
Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article ... Run-of-the-mill events — common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out — are probably not notable.
The fourth reference, titled "Caiyad Phahad as Moulana Fazal Ur Rehman in Geo TV's Hum Sab Umeed Say Hain", is from Geo TV and cannot be considered an independent source. The fifth reference states: "This video was found by the moovyshoovy search engine on youtube.com. Owner of this video is the youtube user Caiyad." It cannot be considered a reliable source.
The other sources are mostly interviews the subject has done or photos/articles written by the subject (example).
Owing to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, this individual fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), and the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MER-C (talk · contribs) that SarahStierch (talk · contribs) exhibited poor judgment in moving this policy-violating, promotional, non-notable user page to the mainspace. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yup... this article is self-promotional... but does it serve the project better to guide this one-note editor, or push him away from the project entirely? This BLP appears to have at least some sourcability, though NOT in English. Would it not be better to request an Urdu-reading Pakistani Wikipedian to instruct the author about conflict of interest and tag it for sandblasting, rather than delete it entirely? I note the amount of Pakistani Urdu language coverage indicative perhaps of notability to Pakistan despite the author being the subject. The Daily Jang (the links worked for me) [3] is the oldest newspaper in Pakistan, and even though most of us en.Wikipedians cannot read or tranlate Urdu, does that mean give up on it? Interviews offer what interviews offer... Urdu or no. We need to consider whether the subject paid FM 101 Pakistan to interview him, or if he was notable enough to the Pakistanis to be worth interviewing. I'd hate to see a contributor turned away simply because we do not have Urdu speaking/reading Wikipedians able to asist in his guidence or involved in finding and translating sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this user has to show for the 2.5 years he's been here is an irredeemably self-promotional biography. He's not here to build the encyclopedia and hence needs to be shown the door. MER-C 09:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but OUCH! His 48 total edits in 2.5 years tells me this guy is still a newb, despite the timeframe. Heck many of us make more than 48 edits in a single day. Does his editorial inexperience mean we toss a possibly improvable topic along with its non-disruptive contibutor simply because it needs cleanup and he lacks experience? I noted above my being aware of the editor as being single-minded, but his user talk page and its history show only a welcome template and then a series of advisory warnings. As a community, it behooves us to do more for a non-disruptive newcomer besides simply templating them that they may have messed up... without anyone explaining how they did so or showing how the issue can be addressed. As he wishes to (so far) concentrate on one topic (not strictly disallowed), I just left him a note with a link to WP:PRIMER. And toward your concrn about WP:NHBE, and though belated, it appears he IS trying to figure this place out and HAS asked for assistance and clarification so as to be a better contributor. Pardon, but I do not think it is the best option to toss, or even suggest tossing, someone who is trying to finally understand simply because he did not receive guidence in the past. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy back to 48 edits newcomer author who has specifically asked for help, so that A) he may create something seen as more suitable for mainspace, and B) so that he may himself become a better editor. Wikipedia can be difficult for newcomers, but we do not punish them for newcomer mistakes when they are so open to becoming better editors. Let's help someone who asks for help, to become the better editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS / REPLY TO COMMENTS OBO CP PLEASE:

WP:Caiyad

To (WP ENC) thats a very rude message, all the data has been supported with references, the only difference is between Caiyad Phahad Article and Other Articles that lot of articles has been written by others for someone or by their own friends or someone whose very closed to him or admired him and in Caiyad Phahad case i am the one whose writing this whose his manager thats it, if you see the content its all very similar

To: Vanispamcruftisement written by a non-notable journalist Can you please mention which one do you think is unreliable as per Wikepedia so i can remove it

To: Cunard i admit that it does not take you to the content directly but there nothing reliable than Daily Jang in Pakistan, its the oldest and top news paper, the issue with Jang Website it does not allow you to view back date issues second the news are like more than 8 years old and some are older at that time there was no concept of E PAPER In pakistan it was only Print Copies, i have attached the print copy with the link, if you have doubt please verify it with Jang People directly, i have mentioned date of published

I have removed movie showie link as its connected to his You Tube Channel, the reason to give this link is just to give idea to people with doubts to see actual video with the channel logo in it, for Hum Sab Umeed Say Hay i have also included the video link now if you think the link i have given earlier is not sufficient

To: USER MER-C (talk · contribs) and Cunard SarahStierch (talk · contribs) has helped me re-writing this and she is the only one in whole wikepedia who came up and helped me as unlike asking for help many times people has just simply mentioned this DELETE THIS PAGE she is the one who came up wrote to me and explained me that where i went wrong and she helped me improvised the content

To: USER DonCalo and NHBE as i mentioned earlier its not self promotion, i am just promoting an artist i am working with the only difference is that i used his name as USER so you think i am promoting myself while in other articles people used dummy names or someone else written for me, if you would have written this article for CP then it would have been right, i am just paying the price for 2 and half years that i am his co worker and i used his name to write this article and i have been treated as spammer or something despite providing so many references

To User: • Gene93k on what basis you have put the article under deletion thats rude and not supportive

To User: Schmidt, thats very supportive and helpful, see i am writing it for Caiyad Phahad, i work for him, the issue is that i am his relative, close friend and his co worker, what you said its right but i feel some people have missed the english articles too, thanks for all your support, i wish that this page should go live with help of people like you, Sarah and all

HE IS KNOWN BUT NOT AS KNOWN AS ELVIS PRESLEY OR GEORGE MICHAEL OR ANYONE IT DOESNT MEAN HE DOESNT DESERVE A SPACE IN WIKEPEDIA THEE ARE MANY PEOPLE ARTICLES ARE THERE IN WIKEPEDIA WHOSE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO HIS FAME THATS BIASNESS PLEASE IF YOU WANT ME TO REMOVE SOME CONTENT SOME REFERENCES I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO IT BUT PLEASE I HUMBLY REQUEST ALL DO NOT DELETE THE PAGE

The "delete" position's main argument is that the subject is non-notable because he has not received nontrivial, non-routine coverage in reliable sources. As I explained above, articles titled "Caiyad Phahad won Inter School Cricket Tournament Title for his school" and "Caiyad Phahad Graduated from IQRA University" cannot, per WP:ROUTINE, be used to establish notability. There is little difference between the subject promoting himself and the subject's "relative, close friend and his co worker" promoting him. Both violate WP:NOTADVERTISING. Given that the page was to be deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Caiyad, and given that the page was moved to mainspace to circumvent that consensus, I do not believe this two-year-old promotional page should userfied. Repeatedly moving this page between the mainspace and userspace to prolong its being on Wikipedia is unacceptable per WP:NOTWEBHOST.
MER-C (talk · contribs) and DonCalo (talk · contribs), please state below whether you agree or disagree with userfying this page. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page should not be userfied for the reasons I outlined in the MFD debate. MER-C 08:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ BELOW WP:NOTWEBHOST
MER-C (talk · contribs) and DonCalo (talk · contribs)

I hereby request Mr. Notwebhost, MER C and DonCalo to please review / read the article again as few changes has been made as per your instructions, as requested earlier please ask me to remove some content of it, please do not remove the whole article "if one part of body is not working / or needs treatment you do not kill the person, you treat or remove that part"

I humbly request some consideration as even making so much of changes and removing alot of contents i still receive same feedback, as mentioned "Caiyad Phahad won Inter School Cricket Tournament Title for his school" and "Caiyad Phahad Graduated from IQRA University" these are published in The Jang which is Pakistan biggest newspaper if in case you want me to translate i can else please ask any URDU WIKEPEDIA STEWARD to review and verify, nothing can be more reliable than THE JANG in Pakistan but i am not stubborn i am willing to make changes as per your instructions and orders but please be wise and supportive, you are all experts of WIKEPEDIA and i am not, i am way beyond and learning, i have just make an account to write for him and in future i may write for others too, would need your kind attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

I do not think these changes have rectified the notability concerns advanced by the supporters of deletion. There were shuffling of paragraphs and additions of primary sources (a YouTube video in which the subject played a role and an article written by the subject).
I reiterate that the Daily Jang articles constitute routine coverage—"announcements" (perhaps submitted to the newspaper by the subject or his family members)—and do not establish notability.
I have asked Lihaas (talk · contribs), who is listed in Category:User ur-3 and can contribute with an advanced level of Urdu, to review the sources. Cunard (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still overtly promotional and still contains elements of a resume. MER-C 13:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please make it simple for me, if you want me to delete something i can or change something i can, i hereby request you very humbly and gently please tell me what content you think should be removed and i will do straight away to finish this instead of making it a huge argument, i appreciate your time and i value it that is why my request is very simple, please advise to all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this fails WP:GNG, still is self promotion and also there is a huge conflict of interest. You asked for advice: I think you should have this deleted before you embarrass yourself even more. Wikipedia is not a fansite: go to Facebook. I also oppose userfication. This article does not belong on Wikipedia and the user is only here for blatant self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. Don't bite the noobs. Carrite (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DonCalo EMBARRASS well i dont think i am being embarrassed by this neither the person i am writing it for, i am surprised if you or any one thinks this way, i guess you guys are being biased, i have done my best to put up this and i am again ready to remove some content if you think its not backed by any valid ref, but i wont agree or appreciate to remove this article, i can show you many examples on Wikepedia like this then what will you, the articles you do for people are also for promotion or their biography or info so whats wrong i have done, i also wrote about celebrity backed by references and enough references Carrite how do you define any one's worth man, you own the world or wikepedia i am wondering who allows you to talk in such a language, dont take me mean but what if i comment on your comment and say "WHAT IS YOUR WORTH" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. →Σ τ c. 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A blizzard of self-promotional, self-submitted or otherwise unreliable sources; what we're not seeing here are news articles from reliable journalists, published in reliable publications, about the subject. WP:BITE does not require us to suspend the policies governing notability and verifiability in newcomers' favor. Further, I have considerable sympathy for the premise that two and a half years in, it is incumbent on an editor to become familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines; no one gets to be a newbie indefinitely.
That being said, Caiyad, no one is demanding that you agree to the article's removal, or appreciate the action when it is removed. Certainly, if you've found other articles on Wikipedia that you don't think meet our notability guidelines, feel free to nominate them for deletion if they cannot be adequately improved. Ravenswing 15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems somewhat signifigant, appears well referenced, just long enough, I'm making a personal copy. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the GFDL-violating, WP:UP#COPIES-violating userfication of User:Phoenix B 1of3/Caiyad Phahad. Consensus at the MfD was that the page does not belong in userspace. A move to article space circumvented the consensus at MfD to delete. Moving it back to userspace is again circumventing the consensus at the MfD and this AfD.
MER-C (talk · contribs), DonCalo (talk · contribs), and Ravenswing (talk · contribs), please comment about whether you agree with this userfication by Phoenix B 1of3. Cunard (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full MfD was cut short after less that two days because the page had been moved to the mainspace. Of the MfD participants, three supported deletion, one was the user himself and supported keeping the page, and one moved the page to the mainspace but described herself as indifferent. Thus, I don't think we can say that there was truly a consensus at MfD. If the MfD had run the full week, there probably would have been a consensus, but it didn't. (Disclaimer: I was the person who closed the MfD, because the page had already been moved to the mainspace, thus making it ineligible for consideration at MfD.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD was circumvented by the move to mainspace. {{mfd}} states (my bolding): "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress."
The rule was adopted to prevent situations like this. I don't believe this gaming of the system should be tolerated by having to initiate another MfD to remove this promotional material from the userspace. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The userpage "draft" was redirected, so this issue is moot for the time being. I still oppose userfication and will consider another MFD if it is userfied. MER-C 09:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Daeges[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. No longer affiliated with team. Fails WP:BASE/N. Fails WP:GNG. References are WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ROUTINE is wrong. This reference hardly qualifies for what the guideline states. "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." I have no vote for now. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is described in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources - in fact, in the largest newspapers of two different states - and as far as I can see, the only cause for declaring that they fall under WP:ROUTINE is the premise that "news about sports" = "routine," a supposition that is nowhere found in the guideline.
That being said, notwithstanding the baseball Wikiproject's absurd prejudice against minor leaguers, Daeges' All-American citation qualifies him under the notability criteria governing college athletes, and he certainly passes the GNG. That he is no longer affiliated with the Red Sox organization is irrelevant; the overwhelming majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia are, I daresay, about people who no longer do the things for which they gained notability. Ravenswing 15:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - Several RS in article, easily passes GNG. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 07:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ravenswing. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Snow. Per Mu and the other above editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Harrington[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Never reached majors. Fails WP:BASE/N. The only reason he gets any "coverage" is because he played during the age of Internet pseudo-experts who cover every aspect of minor league baseball minutiae. If he's kept, every minor leaguer with an article should be kept. Alex (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is very misleading. The Sporting News regularly profiled minor league players ever since its inception in the 1800s, as did many newspapers. You're essentially saying, "It's easier to find reliable sources for the players of today than the players of 100 years ago, so they're not notable." Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above statement. This player is notable to baseball fans due to his role in MLB draft history. Strong Keep Em-jay-es 22:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep May not meet baseball guidelines, but meets WP:GNG with lots of room to spare due to significant coverage in a multitude of sources. Also an extraordinarily pointy nomination, and should be immediately quashed on that basis unless a better reason for deletion is given. -Dewelar (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (with Comment) I de-PRODed this just a couple days ago with this statement: "Totally absurd PROD. Fails GNG? Harrington received more media coverage than 99% of all draft picks/minor leaguers in baseball history," and no more than 5 seconds with Google proves as much. What part of this was unclear to Alex? Aren't there any adults around here who can deal with this guy so he doesn't keep wasting everyone's time like this? He says he's not wasting our time, but if people don't keep stepping in like this, pages like this would be deleted. Alex has become little more than a troll (see his absurd and still unexplained "logic" in the current Tom Kotchman and Richard Klaus AfDs) and he seems to be in desperate need of a WP:WIKIBREAK. — NY-13021 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Marie Lofaso[edit]

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

Law prof who fails WP:PROF -- article was de-prodded by an editor who added only a reference to the subject's profile at her employer, and there is insufficient support elsewhere to justify an article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost nothing to be found in the sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article creator blanked the page - isn't this sometimes treated as a consent to deletion from a new editor?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Rowe (poet)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the guidelines in WP:AUTHOR. Contributed to anthologies and has his own books, but using Google, I don't see much evidence that this poet is notable and there isn't any indication thereof in the article. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the time this AfD was started the article had no references. Since then a large number of "references" have been rapidly added, which superficially look impressive. However, closer examination of those references reveals that most of them don't even mention David Rowe, of those that do mention him most make only passing reference, and many of them are not reliable sources, not independent of the subject, or both. A good deal of work has gone into trying to make this subject look notable, but unfortunately has not succeeded. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage about him to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBWatson - the addition of misleading references is the killer. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SpongeBob SquarePants. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (converse) 10:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chum Bucket[edit]

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

This article has no sources and currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So what? SpongeBob is sadly notable, so the lack of sources in this sub-article tells me nothing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited; not every fictional setting within a notable television program is notable. Without significant coverage in third-party sources, there's no way we can have a verifiable article on this topic. Powers ^T 20:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Powers. SpongeBob is notable, yes, but that does not mean we must have an article about every aspect of the character and its show, unless these aspects have received significant coverage by reliable third-party sources, which is not the case here. Maddox (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional restaurant as a stand-alone article does not meet the general notability guideline and the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang gliding fatalities involving hang gliders with TCF[edit]

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

Not really a notable or encyclopedic subject for a stand alone article which is really a very small list of fatal accidents to non-notable persons. Adds no value that a paragraph on safety in Hang gliding could not do so. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The persons are notable. The studies referenced are notable. The topic is encyclopedic matter. Joefaust (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in the context of Wikipedia Notable means that Wikipedia has an article about that person, so these are not notable people in that sense, just because they died hang gliding. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very confused article as it is very unclear what the purpose and scope is supposed to be. It sort of looks like the intention is to collect a list of every hang gliding fatality, which would run to many thousand names, making this a WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem. I agree that the subject of hang gliding safety needs to be addressed in Wikipedia, but this is not the right way to go about it. I would support a section on this within Hang gliding that summarizes existing studies on safety, but a complete or incomplete list of fatalites is more like a memorial. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - USHPA reported 2 fatalities in 2003. How many thousand years has this sport been in existence? Carrite (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article appears to be OR (assembling statistics from summation of news reports etc). Safety record of hang gliding should be attempted in the main article rather than jumping to a sub-article. As it stands article is incomplete - jumping from one incident in 1896 (which isn't in the article title scope and has been included erroneously) to 2003. Better to burn the article and for the author to start again in userspace. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start-article editor here: I note here and ask for admin to effect, if wanted: I abandon the article to WikiProject. I do not know how to effect that, even if possible. Others might take up the article. Thank you all for your first consideration. If WP does face safety in hang gliding, then keeping the TCF sector separate from the canopy-long-line-to-pilot paraglider hang gliders would serve the world best; mixing the two would destroy opportunities. Retired from this article. KEEP it. Joefaust (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the original author of the page do this: Edit the page. Delete all content and leave {{db-g7}} at the top of the page. This indicates to WP Admins that you no longer want the page. 88xxxx (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from the comments above, after looking over the Triangle control frame article, the whole TCF thing appears to be textbook WP:SYNTH, if not purely WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is of almost no value, as well as having zero notability.Petebutt (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lists should be of items notable in their own right, either notable people, events, or for bibliographies, books considered useful reference sources for other articles. This is a nonnotable list, whose subject could get at best a small paragraph at hang gliding. also Category:Deaths by hang gliding Category:Deaths by paragliding have only these articles in them (sort of a 4 cornered walled garden), and no notable individuals who have died in this manner.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. There's not even a nomination to delete the article (former-admin close) Secret ^account 04:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Podesta[edit]

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

Speedy Keep . Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 19:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Mr. Podesta is clearly a notable lobbyist [4]. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the New York Time article that Mark Arsten found, the same newspaper profiled him and his brother John here in 2000, saying that "Tony Podesta is a facilitator, a broker, a translator, who helps businesses understand the ways of Washington." The Boston Globe called him a "highly successful lobbyist" here in 2000. The Washington Post called him and his wife "superlobbyists" and owners of a "large, eye-popping modern-art collection" in an article about their donation of an iconic portrait of Barack Obama to the National Portrait Gallery here in 2009. There's a biographical sketch of him on pages 158-159 of Lobbying in America: A Reference Handbook. Tony Podesta has been a notable Democratic Party activist and lobbyist for 40 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: quite notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lobbyist with direct connections to the U.S. President is of course notable. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Verdi[edit]

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

Another article created by Alexautographs, PROD'd, contested, though no indications of GNG or BASE/N whatsoever. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources which establish notability. — KV5 • Talk • 18:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jeebus, give me time. You prodded a million of my articles, it takes time going through each of them and finding sources. Sheesh. Alex (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't PROD anything. — KV5 • Talk • 21:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You created this article on September 1. You've had more than a month to reference it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single non-database source in the article, which means it never should have been created in the first place. Alex still doesn't seem to understand that the process is "Find sources, create article" rather than "Create article, leave untouched for 2 months, find sources only after AfDed." Enough is enough. — NY-13021 (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm of a mind with NY-13031. Having multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject in the "significant detail" that the GNG requires is a prerequisite to creating articles. If the creator is in the habit of ignoring this fundamental requirement of the encyclopedia, it is not the fault of the AfD process. I will be happy to change my vote should the creator come up with such sources for this article. Ravenswing 16:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Frank Verdi, where a small mention of his career can be included. Spanneraol (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There doesn't appear to be anyone arguing for deletion of these articles. Articles for Deletion is not the correct place to start discussions to merge articles. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of Sunset Beach[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These articles below, along with the above, are nominated for the same reasons: they have not established notabilities, have been full of in-universes and empty of true perspectives, have not been referenced by sources, including third-party, and have been biographies of fictional characters of the cancelled soap Sunset Beach. During the AfD, there should be no cut-and-paste edits and no redirects during the AfD span. Instead, wait until this discussion is closed. By the way, these articles may not stand alone as articles any longer: either redirect all to List of Sunset Beach characters or delete all. --Gh87 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Do you mean: Merge (or delete) all except Olivia Richards, Meg Cummings, Bette Katzenkazrahi and Annie Douglas Richards, which I have convinced myself to vote. Right now, I vote keep all except Sara Cummings, Caitlin Deschanel, Vanessa Hart, Gabi Martinez,, and Maria Torres. The articles that I ~~exempted~~ fully support have become more superb and precise as other articles of British soap operas and their entities. And no... The British is NOT invading of American soaps and their entities. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)~~ The articles that I have exempted (or italicized) have still not improved at this time, and my judgment is: they are not notable by many people, soap fans and casual viewers alike, and their articles have been overlooked to be improved for years. The current news do not cover these characters, and the news within the past ten years do not cover them at all (if not very much), especially outside soap-oriented periodicals. I'm very sure that the periodicals and books outside the primary sources, which would be of soap operas, at the time of near-cancellation covers only the soap opera and the portrayers, such as Eddie Cibrian, but I must have overlooked. Currently, the exempted articles contain plots only and left out the real world perception: this may be against what Wikipedia is not and should be not. These exempted fictional characters have potential to be notable; the reliable ones should be of the past because the current news, as mentioned previously, do not cover them after the cancellation of Sunset Beach. --Gh87 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They have had no attention from a willing editor. Let's see what a revamp of one of them pulls up.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep all of them. All of the SB characters - women and men - should remain. They are notable characters and although they may have been neglected, I would like to help improve them. Do not delete them.Casanova88 (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to help, now would be a great time. You need to establish that they are notable.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my talk page, I am not very sure if the current citations of Annie Douglas Richards are reliable anymore. They are very old articles at the time that the show was running. Let's check WP:RELIABILITY. To improve, the content that is cited should be either removed, rewritten, or kept. --Gh87 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are you serious. Old sources? So in ten years time we should remove all "old" reliable sources. Many of the publications, if not all are still in circulation - reliable then and reliable now. As for it being rewritten - This is a AFD not a FAC.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know: You did your best. I have recently looked at the publications that you cited. Newspapers are very good as well as magazines. I guess: you have cited third-party publications. Can you evaluate your citations carefully? What about more recent articles? What about books and scholarly journals? That could be possible. Maybe I was wrong about the old articles; I just see one too many old that I became overwhelmed. Citing a recap from the Sunday edition of a newspaper? Maybe that is a good possibility. Just in case: perhaps we must avoid citing too many publications that discuss anything else in general, such as actors overall in one article and the show in the other, more than the character herself. Also, let's not have too much trivia there: one reference of Jerry Springer and a few references of other real people are probably good enough for now. --Gh87 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to finish looking through the google news archive yet. Then I will look through google books and any other archives. I doubt you will find many class publications reporting on any soap character though - as soap opera is not the most high-brow genre. Also if the serial decided to hire high profile actors and personalities to help develop Annie's dream sequences, I do not see the issue. If a character is notable for something, then I like to put that spin on the article. Having once watched the show, I am included the most notable cameos - and that is shown by the fact they wsere reported on. Another good thing to bare in mind is that Annie is from a time that little online publications offered opinion peices on characters - because they did not have the readership they have gained during the throughout the last decade and the boom shift to newspapers going online. So for what I am included, it is a fair assumption that there is a lot of lost potential print sources out their for this character. The difference with this particular soap opera is that while it didn't fair all that good in viewership, it was a stable in the press for it's "bonkers" storylines, which Annie has been at the center of quite a lot. So that is why I perhaps contest the proposed deletion of these as opposed to many other characters from US soaps you have nominated for AFD. So I can assure you too that any trivial mentions and sources with bad editorial have been discarded by me.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all Per the nom. Note that unless someone has contested the merging, we don't actually even need to be at AfD... Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable television series. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you referring the show or the female characters themselves? If the show, then you might re-consider your argument: this AfD is about female characters of the show. <strike></strike> could help you ~~strike~~ your votes and then change. --Gh87 (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is safe to say that Annie Douglas Richards should be kept now.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done the bolding and the italicizing separately and combined for more emphasis. --Gh87 (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All of these articles are relevant and notable. They do not deserve to be deleted because they all have correct sources that are reliable.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:RELIABILITY and WP:CITE and WP:NOT? Also, what are reliable sources to you? TV.com is just merely user-submitted; why are its pages cited? Also, why do you think, other than Annie Douglas Richards, that articles have correct sources? Is it the plot, the character's background, or what? --Gh87 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On the grounds that there is notability and potential in nearly every one of these. They need attention and I can not it alone, but given time they can be updated and real world info can be added, plot sections can be cut down and later sourced if needs be. Many publications have given opinion peices, there is casting info and some have been involved in notable plots. Source - Google News Search. It is just a case of adding some, I'm making a start.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All seem notable just looking at Annie Douglas Richards proves that they can be sourced and rescued from deletion.D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed Youtube sources that provide copyrighted material, which would be inspected by companies later then. I found them unreliable; sometimes, users or copyright owners remove them videos. Also, TV.com is user-submitted and administrator-approved. --Gh87 (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Provided sources for the main example, Olivia Blake and fixed it up a little. Now I've added some to Meg Cummings.RaintheOne ^BAM 13:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All are notable and seem to be improving due to outside sources and publications and various improvements. However, Raintheone, I am curious as to why you are making the articles similar to UK soaps. These are American soaps and should be in coordinance with other US soap infobox styles. Although the other improvements are more than welcome why are must the infoboxes resemble UK soaps. Though not a major disagreement, there is no logic in that.Casanova88 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would because UK editors have a handle on soap opera articles - but I'll leave that discussion for else where.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova, can you re-phrase your argument? It appears as if the British is invading articles of American soaps, unless I understood less. What is your logic? --Gh87 (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Sunset Beach characters: I do not believe that the fictional characters meet the general notability guideline and, outside of Olivia Richards, Meg Cummings, Bette Katzenkazrahi and Annie Douglas Richards, they are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. As List of Sunset Beach characters already exists, merging content from the articles should be better than outright deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: "Olivia Blake" has become "Olivia Richards". --Gh87 (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have started to add sources and character development to Virginia Harrison.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the articles that have been improved and now contain real world info should be kept and the others should be merged to an appropriate list. - JuneGloom Talk 21:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article has caused concern for some years, though that appears to be due to the controversial nature of the subject matter rather than that it specifically meets deletion criteria, The parent article, Global warming, has also been a major cause of concern, but through careful editing (and ArbCom sanctions) is now a Featured Article. The main concerns about this article are that it is original research and is not neutral. These are editing issues. It is notable that a number of people opposing the article now and in previous AfDs seem to feel that the topic is appropriate, but that the article needs cleaning up. While AfD can and does discuss clean up issues, it should not be used as a substitute for tackling the issues on the article talk page nor for positive editing on the article itself. If problems are arising though attempts to clean up the article there are |more appropriate routes to go through than AfD. Arguments of fringe and undue are well countered both by the sources provided by Warden, and by awareness, as pointed out by NewsAndEventsGuy, that the article is prose linked in related articles on Wikipedia (not just templated). Lists by their nature sometimes fly close to OR as there are sometimes no sources available which group items together the way that Wikipedia lists do. However, the list appears to meet MOS:LIST, and provides both information and navigation. The two most controversial aspects of the list are the name and the use of quotes. These aspects need to be dealt with, but not by listing on AfD. I suggest opening a name discussion – either by RfC or Requested moves, and when that is concluded hold a similar discussion on the use of quotations in the article to see if they meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Quotations. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

DRVs for this article:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)

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

This list is, by its very construction, in violation of several Wikipedia policies.

It's a WP:QUOTEFARM, every single one of which is a WP:POVPUSH, attacking Global warming. Little to no attempt to balance these WP:FRINGE views with mainstream is done. Indeed, this article is promoted by global warming denialists [5].

These problems are not fixable by editing; they're necessary outcomes of the way the list is created, which actually requires a quote for inclusion.

However, this leads to worse problems: This list is Original research (these names are not taken from any sort of reliable source, but from scanning primary sources for things that people think are anti-global warming), and a potential WP:BLP minefield, as it attempts to classify possibly nuanced views based on single quotes.

Further, it often synthesises an argument from multiple sources. Take Garth Paltridge, where the conclusion of the argument is from a different paper than the first part. This is not a single example, and, is, again, another source of potential WP:BLP violations - and very definitely WP:SYNTH ones.

But the worst issue is that we've seen these sorts of lists before. This isn't an encyclopedic article; this is a popular denialist technique: The list of experts that oppose a position. We do not copy the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, but instead discuss it, using reliable sources. We certainly don't attempt to make our own list, to assist them in their campaign. We don't create our own list of scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment that second-hand smoke causes cancer, full of pro-tobacco arguments, nor do we provide articles to let cranks "have their say" on why the earth is flat.

And yet, we have this article, clearly based on a common denialist campaign tactic, and it's survived four AfDs, with little-to-no change. Any encyclopedic treatment of this subject would need to be a fundamentally different sort of article, for which the article, as it stands, would offer no usable content.

Let's put an end to this. 86.** IP (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes and comments by interested editors[edit]

Keep The climate change contrarians are notable both severally and as individuals. For example, see this recent story: War of words over global warming as Nobel laureate resigns in protest. I'm not sure of all the details of how our coverage ended up in this current form but you may be sure that it was argued at length, as the previous AFDs show. This article is part of a set, including Scientific opinion on climate change, Media coverage of climate change and Public opinion on climate change which are shown together with this list in the Opinion and climate change template. It would not be balanced to knock out just one part of this set. Warden (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These positions do not have equal weight, however: According to http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/articles/Anderegg_ClimateConsensus_Report2009.pdf "Based on our external assessment and relative weighing of expert opinion, we conclude that for five questions, the scientific community has reached a de facto consensus (more than 95% agreement) aligned with the view of the IPCC." - if less than 5% of the scientific community hold the poosition, then it is Perfectly reasonable not to spend 25% of our coverage on them, and not at all unbalanced. Your keep argument is therefore in violation of WP:FRINGE. 86.** IP (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading a book about the history of mathematical proof recently. There's an amusing anecdote in this about Italian mathematics in which, for a period, theorems were decided by vote rather than by proof. That is laughable because such matters are not decided by a head-count. In any case, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong - time will tell. The point is that the dissenting opinions are notable and so we should not suppress them. If we record the views of the Flat Earth Society then we can do the same for other contrarians. Warden (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an argument for deletion, since the whole page is essentially a stacked "vote" by including one side of an argument rather than working though issues. However, as a matter of fact such matters are in the real world decided by a head count, or rather by consensus, as are all such issues. A theorem is only a theorem because mathematicans agree that it is. There's nothing laughable about this, other than your own belief that truth can be identified beyond the communities of experts who have the capacity to judge the topic at issue. You may intuitively believe that that truth exists independently of consensus, but in really it cannot, or if it does it cannot be proven to do so, by definition. Paul B (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Giving this its own article, particularly with the extensive quoting, is giving undue weight to a fringe theory. As well, the topic is so broad that such a list will inevitably be (and is) synthesis, both because of the grouping of these individuals together under one opinion and because of the interpretations of their primary-source writings. (BLP is an issue as well - because we're interpreting these individuals' writings of our own accord, we may very well be labeling people as opposing science who do not actually do so.) Warden's argument that this article is part of a set actually highlights why this doesn't need to be a separate article: dissent should be covered in the other articles, where it can be properly contextualized. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but fix any problems Disclaimer: my own POV I have to struggle with is ultraclimatehawk. That said, the fringe views in the article are partially offset by the image in the lead (showing degree of consensus for mainstream view) and the many other (good) articles that cross-ref this one. So what if some % of entries on this page violate WP:OR or WP:FRINGE or WP:(other), IMO, while that may all be true, the article itself serves as an important pressure relief valve for skeptics/denialists. If this article goes away, such editors will more aggressively push to include this type of info in the other climate articles. Maybe its not ideal, and maybe the presentation at present stinks, but the existence of the page serves an important pressure relief purpose IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As set out above, These problems are unfixable, because they come out of the very design of this list'. You can't fix OR and synthesis, Quotefarming, and the like, when the article's goal is to provide a set of denialist quotes, organised through original research, in order to... well, WP:POVPUSH the views of the denialists. There is literally no encyclopedic purpose served by this list, you cannot "fix" thisx except by deleting it. 86.** IP (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing their views is not the reason I want the list to remain, and you would know that if you read what I wrote and assumed I was telling the truth. You haven't spent time making other climate articles better, so I'm curious why you care about so much about deleting this particular one? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that was why you wanted to, I was explaining why it would be impossible to do what you ask. I think I have made it entirely clear why I think it should be deleted; it's horrible. 86.** IP (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I don't see an intrinsic reason to oppose such a list; challenges to even the most widely-accepted consensus is a vital element of science. But the topic itself is thoroughly covered by the Global warming controversy article, and this list just seems to be repeating the same material. The content should be trimmed to a summary intro and a list of the cited scientists. The article name itself is awkward and should be changed. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a WP:COATRACK. Any minor opposition can be described in the relevant articles. N^oformation ^Talk 22:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think Roscelese sums the problems up well - the problems with undue weight and synthesis are essentially insoluable with a list like this. Regarding NewsAndEventsGuy's comments on it having "an important pressure relief purpose", this is hardly a valid reason to retain it. Articles should be created for the benefit of readers, not to act as a sop to contributors unwilling to edit according to the agreed consensus. I know that this is a controversial issue, and I'm well aware that many people hold strong views, but that shouldn't sway our judgement when making decisions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently having OR and WEIGHT issues to it being formatted as a list like this; specifically grouping anyone who has ever expressed any disagreement with any facet of the current consensus on climate change together as a group for listing is a recipe for SYNTH that can't be solve without the deletion of the article. Yobol (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the mere existence of such an article is not an endorsement of these scientists' position, any more than list of communist parties is an endorsement of communism. The global warming denial movement is notable regardless of its scientific merit, and so are the people behind it. 169.231.54.151 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd argue that being "denialist" is hardly WP:FRINGE (and is likely to become even less so as time passes)...but if that's too POV, then simply because this is, in my opinion, an encyclopediatic list, provided WP:OR is stripped out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list itself is WP:OR and there's no way for it not to be. No one but a Wikipedia editor has ever put together a list like this. Additionally, it's very doubtful that many of these names belong on the list. I see no policy-based arguments in favor of keeping this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so.... see [this list at Skeptical Science] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an index page to explanations of why anti-fglobal warming arguments are wrong. If you're going to sa that other lists of global warming deniers have been made, please make sure the pages linked to actually contain lists of anti-global warming people. 86.** IP (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down and take a real look this time. For example, see the link "Oceans are cooling" under the subheading "it's cooling", which brings up [this]. There, you will see a statement attributed to skeptic/denier William DiPuccio. Click on one of the other common denier/skeptic arguments, and the page will start with a different statement attributed to another. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that this article should contain a multi-paragraph statement exapalining whta's wrong with every single quote? If not, not comparable. 86.180.228.28 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mainly because it's OR. Secondly because of UNDUE. Shot info (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - by all means have another debate about how to improve the article or present the information in a better way, but I think it serves a useful purpose to the encyclopedia reader in providing context to the wilder claims of each side about the strength of their support in the scientific community, and I do not currently think it should be deleted. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After any OR and pointless quotes are removed there won't be much of an article left to keep. Most of the scientists don't even seem to be climatologists which is very odd. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The article also contains scientists who aren't even qualified to speak about climate change such as Astronomers and Solid state physicists etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you saying, that physicists aren't scientists? Look at the title of the article Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I am pointing out that the article has non-experts who are scientists commenting on global warming outside their own fields. The current title gives the impression that the people in the list will be experts on the subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't- it says "scientists" not "climate scientists", "experts" or "climatologists"Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This still does not change the fact that people will infer that the scientists ARE experts, if they aren't experts then what is the point of having a list of non-experts? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing other statements, WP:FRINGE is often misused to omit opposing information, which itself would be in violation of WP:NPOV. Lists in no, way, shape, or form, are endorsements of the viewpoints. Denial of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a notable and growing topic. Personally disagreeing with the views expressed by the scientists in question does not make the fact that the views exist any less notable. And WP:CONS is the ruling principle of what happens to articles on WP, not the near-religious and overzealous application of a half-dozen policies (that consensus can overide at any time) in effort to get rid of something you personally don't agree with. The consensus the last three times has been the same.—Matt (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - the last AfD closed as no consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Consensus can change and indeed it already did change in the last AfD.Griswaldo (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Where there is OR remove & discuss it, where there is POV remove & discuss it, but we don't delete whole articles that clearly have an encyclopedic interest. POV is not a deletion criteria nor is coatracking, we solve the problem, if there is nothing left then we look to delete it as no content. This hasn't been done yet. If there are examples of OR these should be taken up on the talk page, but having looked through the article all of the comments look well sourced and in context. Being a potential BLP minefield doesn't mean that it IS a BLP issue, since when do we delete articles because the have the potential to have issues. If the initiating editor can see BLP issues I suggest they immediately remove them and bring it up on the talk page. I would suggest that this nomination is based on a POV with such rhetoric as "...attacking global warming...". It is not wikipedia's job to defend a position or act on such POV, but it is Wikipedia's to reflect that there is a clear interest in finding out who these scientists are that are going against the consensual position. ^Khukri 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is ORIGINAL RESEARCH through and through. It establishes a novel inclusion criteria then forces Wikipedians to interpret primary sources to figure out if they meet this inclusion criteria. It is also a QUOTE FARM. If the article is kept quotes need to be moved to the citations and not be displayed on the page like this. The fact that people supporting this entry's existence are also reverting good faith efforts to remove the quote farm is a major problem.Griswaldo (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the introductory material, which is a little too close to making a judgemnt. The quotes in this case are a convenient way of showingthe views--we don 't usually do it, but in my opinion, it's justified. Reducing their length would introduce problems of selective quotation. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator confuses "minority" with "fringe". Although I don't think it's a very good article, I can't see much point deleting it.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix the problems noted, per Khukri and others. As a comment, the quote format is novel but seems effective, though some quotes could use pruning. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the excessive quoting effective? and effective at what? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can work on developing a consensus re the quotes after the AfD closes. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question. You're making an argument based on the fact that they are "effective." Unless you explain why/how your argument will appear to be without substance. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment in passing, as I hadn't really looked at this article in detail, prior to this AfD discussion. An AfD isn't really the appropriate place to discuss format issues, imo. I agree that the article needs work. Assuming it is retained, I'd be happy to work on the quote issue. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC). Comment revised 20:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing in an AfD and you haven't looked at the article in years, "if ever?" Can you please strike your argument in that case.Griswaldo (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See clarification above. I looked at the article, talk page & this page carefully for this AfD discussion. Sorry for the confusion, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should use strike through so people can see what I was commenting on. You clearly said you might not ever have read this article in your comment before you changed it. Also, you are still not answering the question, which is not about form at all. You made an argument and someone asked you to explain it and you've been dancing all around it ever since. Please explain what the list is effective at doing. If you don't, once again, you're proving to us that you're just saying stuff without any grounding. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attack other editors who make good faith contributions. Also, the place for a discussion on improving the article is that article's Talk page, not the Deletion page. --Merlinme (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's part of his keep statement, it should be fully explained here what he meant. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Colonel Warden's argument that this article is part of a "set" is self-refuting. There are, as he points out, several articles in which the issue is thrashed out. This article is structured in such a way that this completely trashes WP:NPOV. It's a list of names with potted summaries of arguments in one side of a dispute, and that a marginal, indeed largely fringe, position. It's pure propaganda for a non-mainstream position. The inclusion of quotations turns it from a genuine list into an advocacy aticle. Even as a mere list it has no utility, since "opposing the maistream view" is not a single position. Someone who believes the temperature will rise to the extent that we'll all be ash in five years time also "opposes the mainstream" view. There are many inconsistent and contradictory divergences of opinion, some of which are pure fringe and some of which are legitimate matters for debate. Including all these in a single list obfuscates matters and creates the impression that there is some sort of consistent, well-thought-through opposition opinion, rather than a jumble of individual disagreements about a variety of aspects of a complex topic. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About fixing problems Here is one way some of the objections might be addressed; I'm not suggesting we debate whether this is a good way or bad way here because this page should really just be about the existence of the page in any form. If the page survives AFD, interested editors can bash or cheer this approach on the articles talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This statement in the lead explains exactly why the article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and has no place at Wikipedia: "This article is an attempt to list notable scientists who have made statements in disagreement..." (and removing that statement would not fix the problem which is accurately described by the statement). Instead of editors combing through everything a scientist has said, articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary page break, for easier editing[edit]

Comment: the nominator and other editors argue that this list is WP:OR -- but, if so, so is every other list in the encyclopedia. Making a list involves editorial choices, generally by many editors. See, for example, the Revision history of the List of science fiction authors -- or virtually any other list in the encyclopedia.

The nominator appears to hold strong personal opinions on this topic. The list is said to be "attacking Global warming." It is said to be "a popular denialist technique." The article is is said to be "clearly based on a common denialist campaign tactic." Perhaps the nominator should review WP:Assume Good Faith. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apples to oranges Pete. You can find reliable secondary and tertiary sources that classify an author as a "science fiction" author without having to decide on your own based on his/her books. What we're asking editors to do here is to decide on their own based on primary sources. Apples to oranges.Griswaldo (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources available for this topic as well -- one that comes to mind was a series of profiles of climate-contrarian scientists by Lawrence Solomon that ran at Canada' National Post AWB, and was (ims) made into a book: [6].

This cite should be added, but my point is that, for editors familiar with the topic, the prominent skeptics (and science-fiction authors, etc etc.) are already well-known, and so seldom cited to a secondary source in most lists. Thus the claim for OR is flawed, and can (and should) be readily fixed. Hardly a cause for deletion. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A battleground article pure-and-simple that tries to pigeonhole people into an "opposition" category that is only defined by what it is not. Would it be appropriate to have an article on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of gravity or List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of evolution or List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of electromagnetism or List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of meteorology? That there is a media-hyped controversy over the broader topic of global warming is fact that is addressed well elsewhere. That there exist ostensible "scientists" who have various opinions on the matter is not surprising. That Wikipedia is trying to determine who does and does not fit such a characteristic is well-beyond the capabilities of the amateur hour that passes for editorial guidance here. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that '69.86...' may very well have got to the core of the issue here. We don't have a definition from a reliable source that allows us to distinguish scientists 'opposing', from scientists 'not opposing' - and on that basis, we should only be listing 'scientists expressing an opinion on the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming' - and due weight would seem to imply that 97% or so of the scientists are in the 'not opposing' camp. To give undue weight (and an article) to a small minority, on the basis of our own synthesis, is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and common sense. We are stating that the distinction is real, significant, and something more than an arbitrary classification, and then attempting to show that it is valid by compliing an arbitrary list of individuals we think fit into the category. This is circular logic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it would not be appropriate to have a list of scientists opposed to the theory of gravity (69.86.225.27). That would be a fringe view. This article is about a minority.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment by User:Tigerboy1966 would be worthy of laughing dismissal if it weren't written with such implied authority. There are plenty of highly respected mainstream scientists who are working within the framework of consensus science to oppose or augment the mainstream theory of gravity in various ways. In contrast, the global warming denialists are all working outside the normal avenues of scientific discourse and have generally distinguished themselves by being extraordinarily oppositional to the normal epistemic discourse. This so-called "list of scientists" outlines a hodge=podge of opinions that are essentially all excluded from the academic discussion of the science of global warming due to the Not even wrong-iness of the arguments. Claiming that the scientists who oppose mainstream GR are somehow "fringe" while these denialists are just a "minority" is not only turning WP:FRINGE inside out; it's just plain ignorant of the state-of-the-art of mainstream science. It's arguments like this which make a strong case for why you shouldn't let anonymous internet users edit an encyclopedia that is striving towards accuracy. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that there were no scientists seeking to augment the GTR. see Straw man And complaining about anonymity is a bit rich coming from someone called 128.59.171.194 Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some lists of a similar kind: List of quantum gravity researchers, List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy, List of Austrian School economists, List of Oxfordian theory supporters. The existence of different camps is not unusual in intellectual fields. The idea that there is a monolithic orthodoxy or one-true-way is not a good general rule. Warden (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants in the global warming controversy might be a defensible list. This junk is not. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am puzzled by the comments which say that the article includes primary sources. Experimental data would be primary. These are quotes from scientists commenting on a range of evidence from primary sources. That would make them secondary sources. Can someone explain this, please? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are sources independently discussing the position of the scientist. The quote in this case are primary sources because it is looking at the actual quote the scientists have made and inferring their position from this. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tigerboy, whether a source is considered primary, secondary or tertiary depends on what it is being use to verify. In cases where you are trying to verify a claim about a person, anything that person says or writes is always considered primary. As you know the sources here are being used as evidence for claims made about people. As you also know those sources are all written by the people the claims are being made about. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP specifically allows us to use material written by the subject as a source, provided it is not unduly self-serving. In theory there could be an issue with unsupported interpretation of such sources, but in practice a statement such as "It is my professional opinion that there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming" seems to leave no room for doubt as to the author's position. Gandalf61 (talk)

Delete and replace with something else - a proper article, not a list of names with a one-line bio each, and an isolated quote. All the present article says is that at this point in time (between about 1996 and the present) this person said this, which appears to contradict the present science. The present assessment may not have been the accepted science when they said that, they may no longer believe what they said then, what they said then may not have been central to their 'conclusions' at the time, they may not even know or care much about climate science but for whatever reason at that point in time they gave someone a usable quote. Most of this is meaningless. What we need is a proper article about the evolution of scientific thought, including the prevalence of scientific dissent where it occurred and was significant, in the field of climate science over the last 10 - 20 years. This isn't it. What we would write would be NPOV, and it would be based on scholarly sources on the subject at hand, e.g. history of science sources, not just various WP editors' random collection of favourite isolated primary-source quotes, in no particular order, with no narrative, no progression and no context. --Nigelj (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that happens, it sounds like it could also be a home for most of the info in Global warming controversy, and then that ambiguous title could be freed up to become a disambiguation page, since "Global warming controversy" could refer to so many different aspects of the issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've tried to avoid looking at this article and the debates about it (because I make it a rule to avoid getting embroiled in disputes over the substance of controversial topics that I care about in real life), but today I broke my own rule and looked -- and I was appalled at what I saw, solely from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy. This is a work of original research and a WP:QUOTEFARM. It does not belong in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you outline the OR aspects as you see them please? Thanks ^Khukri 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why this is original research: This is a hand-curated collection of quotations from 44 people who fit the extremely broad inclusion criteria of having at least one peer-reviewed article, at any time in the past (not necessarily recent) in some area of "natural sciences," broadly construed and not necessarily relevant to climate, who at least once made some sort of attributable statement that the curators of the article (not necessarily some other reliable source) interpret to indicate "disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the Third (or Fourth) Assessment Report of the IPCC." The interpretation of what constitutes "disagreement" is an original determination by Wikipedia contributors, the decision of who to include in the list seems to be subjective, the quotations are not presented in any context -- particularly not the kind of context that normally would be supplied by the kinds of reliable WP:secondary sources that Wikipedia is supposed to rely on (and note that it often is possible to distort a person's meaning by quoting them out of context), and the implications of the opinions have been characterized based on the judgment of Wikipedians who sorted them into article subsections. Not only is this original research, but there are multiple layers of original research here. --Orlady (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most regular Wikipedian contributors would think that this article had "something wrong with it". However, I've yet to see an argument that is persuasive enough to override WP:Use common sense, also known as WP:Ignore all rules. Does this article perform a useful encyclopedic purpose? Yes, it allows a relatively objective assessment of the state of scientific disagreement with the global warming consensus. Is it an article with a large amount of public interest? Yes, it's one of the most regularly accessed WP articles. Could it be improved- yes, but that's not a reason to delete it. It survived three previous deletion attempts. Does it break multiple WP policies- arguably yes, but not in a way which (in my judgement) outweighs the need for a reasonably well written article about the scientific fringe of the climate change consensus. In my view it allows "sceptics" to claim that some scientists disagree, while allowing "believers" to say that the disagreements are relatively minor and with a small number of scientists, and "objective" readers to make their own minds up. Allowing some assessment of these positions I think is a worthwhile enyclopedic endeavour in a topic of international interest. --Merlinme (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is a series of cherry-picked quotes from scientists (many with no expertise in climatology) going to give " a relatively objective assessment of the state of scientific disagreement with the global warming consensus"? If we are to allow "objective readers" to make their own mind up, we have to (a) present both sides of the debate, and (b) source it to the section of the scientific community which is actually qualified to debate the science. This article singularly fails to do either. I don't think there could be a clearer demonstration why Wikipedia needs rules... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't every quote on the whole of Wikipedia fall under 'cherry picked'? The title is those who are opposed to the mainstream ... it's about a certain position, there is nothing wrong with that what so ever for an encyclopedia, as can be seen by the other examples of lists shown above. People have said this article is OR, and it has been shown that there are lists throughout wikipedia that fit people/things into positions. I'd like to see what editors understand about OR, and how it applies to this list and how (if it does) is it different to any other list on Wikipedia. To address having an article from a position, it is not as though this is the only article on global warming, there are loads of objective articles that layout global warming in all its details, this article is simply a criteria to meet the common question, "Who are these scientists are going against concensus?". And regarding your points about sourcing it to the relevant scientific community, again there is a discussion on going on it's talk page exactly about reducing the article to those a have published in climate sciences. ^Khukri 05:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I'm surprised you think it doesn't present both sides of the debate. The lead lays out in some detail the consensus position; there's a graphic at the top of the article showing how the views in the article are a small minority in the scientific community. If that isn't balance, I'm not quite sure what is. --Merlinme (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be canvassing. Warden (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with mentioning it on the fringe noticeboard? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable and encyclopedic topic - it is useful and interesting to see who disagrees with the mainstream view of global warming, and what arguments these people have put forward in published and reliable sources. WP:COATRACK argument is nonsense, because this article is not advocating a position or point of view; it is simply a rigorously sourced list. WP:SYNTH argument is also nonsense for the same reason - a list is not advancing a position, it is just a list. WP:BLP violation is not an issue as long as everything in the list is sourced. WP:BATTLEGROUND is a behavioural guideline, not a reason for deletion. The list could perhaps be cleaned up in places - and personally I am not a fan of the title - but that is not grounds for deletion either. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:QUOTEFARM? Synth applies because the article advances a position that is not found in any secondary or tertiary sources. The entire list is such a position.Griswaldo (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:QUOTEFARM proscribes quotations that are not pertinent i.e. quotations which are not relevant to the topic being written about. All the quotations I can see in this list look very relevant to the topic of the list. And I am totally baffled by your view that this list is advancing a position - do you think that list of astrologers is promoting a belief in astrology, or list of modern dictators is advocating the overthrow of democracy ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not true. The guideline has several prescriptions which apply here, notably "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style". The very stucture of the use of quotation is unencyclopedic. Also, "Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations." That fits this case exactly. If "list of astrologers" included long quotations justifying astrology and denigrating its critics, then yes, it quite obviously would be "promoting a belief in astrology", as would a list of dictators, each supplied with quotations glorifying their achievements and pointing out failings of democratic regimes. This is pretty obvious really. Paul B (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  No, Paul B, it's not obvious. People keep throwing around WP:QUOTEFARM as if the article is clearly in violation, but you're cherry picking what is quite a carefully worded essay (which is worth repeating; QUOTEFARM is an essay, not an official policy). For example: "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit." It certainly does not say "delete any article which contains lots of quotes". It recommends avoiding quoteboxes, but that is a relatively minor issue which is already being discussed. --Merlinme (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  (edit conflict) WP:QUOTEFARM is merely part of an essay - it's not a guideline at all. Having said that, I would be happy to see these passages cited rather than quoted. I see there has been some recent discussion of this at the list's talk page. I still don't see a valid argument for deletion here. Over and out. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The expression "this is pretty obvious really" referred, clearly, to Gandalf's spurious arguments about lists of astrologers and dictators. In fact I can't see how anyone reading it can think otherwise. I note that my comments on that particular argument haver gone completely unanswered. I never said the QUOTEFARM was a policy, only that its content applied legitimately to this article, which ity does. The fact that the essay also discusses misuse of quotations that do not apply to this article is wholly irrelevant. However, that too should be pretty obvious. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I guess what Gandalf61 and I are trying to say is that 1) if the quotes are "pertinent", the article doesn't even violate QUOTEFARM; and 2) even if it did violate QUOTEFARM, that would not be sufficient reason to delete the article. --Merlinme (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Once a dictator/astrologer, always a dictator/astrologer? One problem here is that no effort is put into researching the development of each individual's views. Any properly sceptical scientist will evaluate and re-evaluate data and research as they develop - and there have been many developments in climate science since the mid-1990s when some of the quoted statements were made. Yet we blithely list these people under 'scientists opposing' mainstream science forever on the basis on one quote, found by a wikipedian with no supporting text, argument or secondary source. I think underlying this approach is a tacit assumption that scientific views are like religious beliefs - you are either born with them, or you adopt them for life. Real science doesn't work anything like that, and the whole concept of listing 'fellow believers' as if it did is quite unsavoury to many. --Nigelj (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through the article, I think the supporting text is in the quote and in the reference, if you have an example where this isn't the case, please remove it immediately as a BLP issue. Taking your personal development one step further then, should we remove all peoples beliefs from Wikipedia because we cannot guarantee its accuracy at the time of reading? Remove that Tom cruise follows Scientology because at 6:45 this morning he changed his mind? If there is evidence to suggest their view point has change we remove it, and I'm sure that with the number of global warming activists we have here they'd certainly find comments that Lindzen had changed his mind. ^Khukri 14:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article's role is to list "peoples beliefs" in mainstream science - like those of others in e.g. Scientology - then this is at odds with the actual scientific method. Secondly, I think there's more to collaboratively building good Wikipedia articles than putting up statements to see if "global warming activists" can find reasons to take them down again. --Nigelj (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have several articles on this topic. This one is inherently POV by virtue of its structure. No one is suggesting that all reference to these individuals and arguments should be eliminated, but that they should be placed in the proper context of the debate(s) they are part of, per WP:NPOV, which is a CORE policy. Paul B (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary page break 2, for easier editing[edit]

Keep - Clearly yet another puerile attempt at a damnatio memoriae, which tactic in itself is offensive to the basic core values of nearly all of us. Whose encyclopedia? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. If these individuals are notable for their own articles they may have them. If their views are notable, they can be quoted in the relevant articles on the controversy. Your comment does not address any of this issues raised here. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't even care what the "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" is, whether they think it is real or not. Whichever it is, there is nothing wrong with a list of prominent dissenters on any highly significant topic, but to object to such a list smacks of persecution of "heresy". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is the compilers of the list themselves that have taken on the task of deciding who is a 'heretic' - based on their own research. If the individuals on the list are actually 'prominent dissenters', they should say so themselves, which there is no evidence for - just cherry-picked quotes, with no context (and indeed, no evidence that the individuals concerned still hold these views). The article is a gross violation of WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:FRINGE. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's just a POV Fork file full of original research with no encyclopedic purpose (list of trivia, essentially). Exists only to try to push a view. Should have been deleted last time through as the votes were clearly there. The BLP violations alone are astronomical. DreamGuy (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commentsee WP:NOTVOTE. You could have a thousand deletes, but if they just repeat or rephrase the same points they don't add to the debate or affect the outcome.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise for those !voting keep. I'm sure that the admin closing this discussion will be aware of this - so what exactly are you adding to the outcome here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was citing a specific WP behavioral guideline in response to a point made by another user who seemed to need some clarification on how AfD outcomes were arrived at. Is that wrong?Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The !votes last time were about 38 keep to 42 delete with a few neutral or other ideas. The close of no consensus was therefore quite correct. Warden (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep On the comments regarding undue weight I pretty much agree with Til Eulenspiegel above in that this seems like an attempt to eradicate material that many users disagree with. Articles on minority viewpoints by definition have a more constricted subject than articles dealing with the majority consensus. It is the former articles that lend themselves to lists of this nature, and not the latter. A list of all scientists who support the consensus global warming theory would be so large and expansive as to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but a list of scientists who oppose it is much more manageable and the result gives insight into their varying objections. Weak keep due to some potential OR issues. Them From Space 22:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If " A list of all scientists who support the consensus global warming theory would be so large and expansive as to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE", then how is a reader going to really understand that this list is actually tiny? That is the way the POV is being worked here. To the casual reader, a few dozen looks like quite a lot. A few dozen lengthy quotes in emphasis boxes look like quite a landslide of considered opinion. Yet we can't show them next to the tens of thousands of other statements that make them look insignificant. In this 'list' format, apparently, we can't even discuss how the reasoning given in each quote box is easily shown to be false in the light of published peer-reviewed material, or that the facts stated are not verifiable, or out of date, or whatever is the case for each of them. In other words, this article uses every trick in the Wikipedia rule-book to escape having to give a NPOV treatment of the actual, specific material that it contains. I don't think it was designed like that by anyone in particular, but that is why it has become the coatrack, and the poster-child, that it now undoubtedly is. --Nigelj (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia should carry this material - that deleting this article is tantamount to suppressing this information is a strawman argument that has come up a few times already - but where material this sensitive, important and so easily misunderstood or misrepresented is covered by Wikipedia it is vital that we give it the NPOV treatment that is central to the WP way. By compressing it into a list, rather than covering it properly in what I have called one or more 'proper articles' we fail on one of the main pillars of what we do here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article is kept, someone will need to figure out how to rename it in such a way as to adhere to WP:NPOV, as the current title is extremely problematic. As for the comments above... well, thank God I'm commenting here instead of trying to close this mess of an AFD. If this inches to No Consensus, please for the love of all that is holy consider an RFC to sort some of these issues out - as the issues cited as reasons for deletion (QUOTEFARM, Original Research, NPOV, etc) are all going to still be there once the debate ends. Don't let this sit another two years before fighting it out again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is subject to regular scrutiny and debate - there are some 23 archives of the talk page. It seemed fairly stable until the recent flurry of opposition. The nature of the topic makes it a battleground and occasional spasms of this kind seem inevitable in this topic area until the general issue becomes more settled or is resolved. Warden (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find it ironic that the 'Global Warming' article is blessed as being perfectly accurate and complete, and the article that challenges this theory is being debunked and put up for possible deletion. I also find it interesting that the (factual, actual and verifyable) memos that debunked much of the global warming research has not shown up in the "Global Warming" article. Nor has the fact that Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas to which all anthropogenic processes contribute very little. With cleanup of the issues that have been expressed, this article is more factual than the "Global Warming" article. I was told once that Wikipedia is controlled by people with a strong liberal bias, and should be considered in that light. I refused to believe that at the time, but if this article is actually deleted, I will have no choice but to change my mind. If the key people within Wikipedia are unable to maintain objectivity, then it is my opinion that the entire site should be shut down. . Mweisger (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that these alleged spike-in-the-heart quotations for the most part have not made it into the scientific literature? [[For example, see this way of sorting the list] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mweisger, I see that this is your first contribution to Wikipedia. While your problems with reality having a liberal bias may seem important to you, they are of little relevance here, where we discuss whether the article should be kept or deleted according to agreed Wikipedia policy (which is arrived at by community consensus). If you wish to argue that Wikipedia should be shut down (By whom? The Obama administration? The UN? An angry mob wielding torches and pitchforks?), I suggest you do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I am discussing here is objectivity. The minute the argument was made that the article should be deleted because it was only attributable to a "fringe" group, the argument to delete lost all merit. The fact is that the number of true climatologists (not generic "scientists") that take issue with the mainstream "science" grew significantly when the memos between global warming advocates was made public, and has been steadily growing ever since. Since this is a discussion area, I won't cite this evidence, but it is there if you wander around the internet. There is nothing "fringe" about Global Warming Dissention, and as long as that is the argument being used, the premise is false, and therefore the article should stay. Mweisger (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some editors simply want to delete anything that questions the Global Warming theory. However, skepicsism is not fringe. It is a necessary part of science. This AfD is simply another attempt to hide the opinions of noteable scientists. Certainly, some of these scientists are wrong, but their opinions are still notable and should be a part of wikipedia. Q Science (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, what we are seeing is a marginalisation campaign in action, and there's little "neutral" about that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comments above. No one is arguing that this material should not be covered by Wikipedia. What some people are saying is that covering such important information in the form of a list of names and quotes, is not the best way to present it. WP:NPOV requires that we 'explain the sides' in any disputed area. Listing quotes without context, timeline, counterargument, consideration of the speaker etc, throughout a whole article, under a heading that refers to 'science' twice, does not meet this central policy requirement. --Nigelj (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we must AGF those are not pretexts... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for (1) WP:SYNT concerns—"opposing the mainstream scientific assessment" can mean disagreements over a huge number of details. Clearly an attempt to draw a net as wide as possible in order to pigeonhole people, (2) WP:POVFORK concerns—there are articles describing this controversy in detail e.g. global warming controversy, but this list is a collection of quotes from a single perspective, and (3) WP:LISTN concerns—the criteria that anyone who has ever published a paper in natural sciences is a qualified commentator on climatology is rather thin. I'd like to see a reliable source that has assembled such an "opposition list" based on a similar enough criteria. Although I recommend removing this list from Wikipedia for the above reasons, the list of quotes may actually be appropriate at Wikiquote. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ask for some sources - here's a selection from a variety of perspectives:

Maxwell Boykoff (2009), "Contemporary Media Courtesans: Climate Contrarians", Climate change science and policy, p. 401, Climate contrarians include scientists S. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling...
Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, Oxford University Press, 2005 — interesting for its lofty view of climate change debates across the centuries, listing the notables on each side of the argument
Laurence Solomon (2010), The deniers, Eminent environmentalist Lawrence Solomon set out to find whether any real scientists diverged from global warming orthodoxy. What he found shocked him. Not only did world renowned scientists dissent on every headline warming issue, but the dissenters were far more accomplished and eminent scientists.
"The Scientist Deniers", The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia University Press, 2011, This chapter shines a spotlight on the scientist-deniers and their claims...
"Contrarian Scientists", The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 151, As climate change denial has matured, the number of 'scientists' who promote it has grown in size and diversity...

Warden (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last two, at least, are worth a look. What a different perspective from ours in this article! Rather than list these 'scientists' and their quotes, the recent scholarly NPOV treatment is to follow the financial and the historical threads of the climate denial movement. The references show that these are very strong threads with clear linkages, and that these people are to be found dangling on the ends, insisting that they be referred to as 'scientists' at all costs. I don't think the present article quite makes that well-documented perspective clear with NPOV. I don't see how a list of unchallenged quotes ever will. --Nigelj (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be wary of assuming that any single (or few) author book is consistent with NPOV. On that list, 3 and 4 seem to have pretty clear and opposing POVs. The existence of this list page is not in any way exclusive of climate change denial or scientific opinion on climate change covering other themes. The former does in fact touch on some of the historical and financial threads you mention (though personally I've never been too impressed with the "denial" page). The fact that other topics could be covered isn't in itself an argument for deleting the list, but rather could be seen as an argument for expanding other pages. Dragons flight (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#3 is written by Lawrence Solomon and published by someone who is described by the Huffington Post as the communications director of a hedge fund company.[7][8] #4 is written by a science academic[9] and published by an Ivy League university. I was particularly referring to #5 above, one of 'The Oxford Handbook of...' publications from the Oxford University Press. --Nigelj (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for commenting on my post. I did some spot checks of the list myself, e.g. Claude Allègre and Frederick Seitz, and I agree that those scientists can be legitimately included in a list. However, as evidenced in the above discussion, and as one can read in the two biographies I've mentioned, there needs to be (1) a better criteria for selection: individuals that have been noted (in the real world sense, not WP one, i.e. not just "his name is a blue link") for their comments and opposition, and by that I mean noted by independent sources or by mainstream opponents. Both guys I mentioned meet this criteria. The other thing that needs to change is (2) instead of a quote farm, each list entry needs to spell out how the person has been noted for their opposition, e.g. caused a media furor in France when their appointment came up, or the other guy caused the NAS to address a written protest to NYT. So, there is a sourcebook in this list from which to build a proper one, but keeping the quote farm in article space in the hope of eventually producing a NPOV text is not appropriate, and entries need to conform to the more stringent criteria (1) above. I think the present list should be userfied or moved to a WikiProject space pending rewrite, which is pretty much the same as Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be noted those are not lists (or none of the ones I can see are), and, as such, these sources do not show that such lists as the one Wikipedia has manufactured are encyclopedic, they simply show that some people deny climate change - which everyone knew already. We have two articles: Climate change denial and Global warming controversy on this subject, as well as this list, and there is no reason why we should split a series of POV-pushing quotes off of the two articles we have already which actually discuss the views and their relationship to the mainstream in detail, instead of:

A. Dediding that the IPCC is the ruler of all climate change debate, and any slight disagreement means denying the mainstream assessment.

B. Leaving out all of the responses to the denier's points. Global_warming_controversy#The_mainstream_scientific_position.2C_and_challenges_to_it - Note that every single one (on a quick skim) of the points raised by the quotations in the list is covered in our main article, as well as a host of others - but in the main article, the views are put in context, and all of this context is completely missing from the WP:POVFORK under discussion. 86.** IP (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible that once someone does the NPOV rewriting I suggested above it will become apparent that the resulting list is mostly duplicating other articles. But I'm uncertain about that just yet. Simply organizing the material by the guys' names may be valuable to someone. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For instance Seitz is mentioned in climate change denial, but not about the NAS incident, and Allègre is mentioned in neither that article nor in global warming controversy, although both incidents were notable in their respective countries. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's really more of a call for close as merge. 86.** IP (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; someone could go over this list as an easy way to identify missing personalities/events from those two controversy/denial articles, but the useful and NPOV material is found in the biographical articles linked from it. (That's what I meant by using it as a sourcebook.) Both events I mentioned above are not found in this list, but rather in the biographies of those two guys. The quotes in this list are themselves pretty worthless because they give no indication if they are of any notoriety. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to close this but would prefer to voice my opinion as an argument rather than as a "supervote". The argument that this list constitutes original research is compelling. In the light of WP:BLP, a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research. The reference to Wikipedia's notability guideline as a basis for inclusion (a standard not to my knowledge used by any reliable source) is further indication of this.
In addition, it is not clear how the topic of "which scientists oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming?" (beyond the general topic of climate scepticism) is even notable. It's not immediately clear from the article that it has been covered, as such, in reliable sources. In addition, as the lead makes clear, the position is broadly speaking a fringe position in climate science, and therefore covering the people who hold it separately, at this level of detail, raises serious WP:FRINGE and WP:POVFORK concerns.
The "keep" opinions are unpersuasive, because they mostly do not address the problem of engaging in original research when making controversial lists of living people, and frequently consist only of arguments to avoid such as appeals to usefulness or alleging bad intentions on the part of other editors. On this basis, I recommend that the discussion, in its current state, be closed as "delete" based on the strength of arguments. Sandstein 18:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein's description of the editing process here is incorrect. For example, I have added one entry to this list - Freeman Dyson. He's fairly well known to be a sceptic and the particular trigger for adding him was the source which was used as the citation. That source was The Independent newspaper, which takes a overt stance of political independence and high-minded, high-quality reporting. Their editor introduced the subject as "World-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson ... He's also one of the world's foremost climate change sceptics.". He has also been profiled in a similar and extensive way by the New York Times. It's their finding that he is a notable scientific sceptic, not ours.

Now, when this entry was added to the list, it was challenged and there was some discussion on the talk page which went over these points. The consensus was then that the entry should remain. So, there was no OR here - just the normal and proper process of working from secondary sources. The quotation appears because the current format of the list expects one. But if editors don't like the quotes, these may be removed as they are not fundamental to the nature of the list. The core structure of the list is the list of names, supported by citations and linking to the corresponding Wikipedia articles. And compared to most of the other Lists of scientists, this list is far better sourced and supported. All those other lists just seems to have columns of wikilinks without any supporting evidence. Suggesting that this list is poorly constructed is therefore the reverse of the truth. Because it is such a battleground, the entries and their sources are inspected with unusual vigour and so the quality of the list is correspondingly high. Warden (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The interview of a skeptic with a science journalist is just an outlet for the skeptic. There's nobody there to provide a competing NPOV narrative. And that science journalist in particular has had his ethics questioned [10]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word ethics doesn't seem to appear in your source which seems rather bloggish. Anyway, here's that NYT source which describes Dyson as "Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists ... his dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science.". How is any OR required to understand that Dyson belongs in this list? Warden (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there was OR involved in reading that NYT article, which you have only mentioned just now as a straw man. But look for instance at the entry for Garth Paltridge; it's sourced only from his own writings. Did anyone else notice him as an AGW skeptic? I can't tell from this list. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page is problematic for several reasons. A list of this sort, especially with quotes, is always going to give the impression that there is a large well-supported minority which does not think humans are causing climate change, which gives undue weight to that position. The paragraph at the beginning pointing out that the vast majority of scientists don't agree with these opinions is not going to redress the balance and the reader is going to be left with a misleading impression. Secondly there are problems with original research. The entries in this list are by and large sourced to statements made by the individuals concerned and not to reliable secondary sources which describe the individual as opposing the scientific consensus. It is therefore up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether a certain statement means the individual is opposing the scientific consensus on global warming and that is not a decision we should be making. Fixing this would require most of the list to be removed and then re-added when someone can source it, which is little different from deletion. Finally there are BLP concerns. If the statements quoted here do not accurately reflect the position of the individual, the individual has changed their mind or the individual disagrees that they are opposing the mainstream scientific assessment then the list is violating BLP. This is a particular danger of using primary sources. Being seen as a climate change denier could certainly damage a scientist's career.
There are two other important concerns I have which don't necessarily require deletion of the page. The first is that the scope of the list is overly broad. Anyone who disagrees with the IPCC report could potentially be included, and people who deny that humans are causing climate change at all are lumped in with people who merely question the accuracy of climate models. Secondly many of the people in the list do not work within fields relevant to climate change (mathematicians, astronomers, nuclear physicists, optics specialists, mining geologists etc) and including them is misleading. Hut 8.5 18:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro McIntyre[edit]

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

Non-notable scout, contested PROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources provided do not establish notability; two sources do not even mention the subject. — KV5 • Talk • 18:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both the articles do mention him, you just need to pay to see what it says. Alex (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added more links and references. Alex (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep.. I'd like to know how how much he was featured in the ESPN documentary.. but for now keep. Spanneraol (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Change to delete per comments below. Spanneraol (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User:NY-13021's comment below. He wasn't "featured" in a documentary. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no claim of notability anywhere in the article. He played one year of professional baseball, worked as a part-time scout, and now holds baseball clinics. I hate to beat a dead horse, but if multiple national articles about 30-year baseball executive Keith Lieppman weren't deemed sufficient for purposes of GNG, then this isn't even close. Even if he was featured in the ESPN show rather than make a passing appearance, one-off actors and actresses usually don't pass GNG, so why would this be different? I tend to be an inclusionist, but there needs to be more consistency in AfD voting. (By the way, for Alex to claim this guy is notable on the same day Alex nominated Matt Harrington for deletion is the very definition of trolling. Again, enough is enough.) — NY-13021 (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered more nonsense from Alex. In this AfD, he's claiming a Los Angeles Times article helps establish notability for Jethro McIntyre. I clicked over to it and found that this very same Los Angeles Times article mentions Tom Kotchman, the topic of another pending AfD, multiple times, yet Alex voted to delete Kotchman, who has far more citations. What gives? I feel like I'm watching the online version of a three-year-old having a temper tantrum. (For the record, I don't think that particular L.A. Times article establishes notability for either person, but the lack of consistency is strange and unexplained.) — NY-13021 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy...you're the one raging so much. I can see the veins popping from your neck. I can tell your blood pressure rises every time I make an appearance. If by chance I were "trolling", then I'm doing it right, because you're falling right into my supposed troll trap. Alex (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not raging at all. I'm just tired of you violating policies and wasting our time. As usual, I noticed you didn't address my comment above, just like you haven't explained your bizarre and inconsistent "logic" in the Tom Kotchman and Richard Klaus AfDs. — NY-13021 (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super duper incredibly strong without a doubt keep Served as a full-time scout for decades, featured in notable television broadcasts, featured in length in a book. Alex (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. He wasn't "featured" in anything. He was one of 49 people interviewed in the 45-minute Frank Robinson episode, and one of 39 people interviewed in the 45-minute Curt Flood episode. If this is the new standard, anyone who ever appeared on a news show is now notable for Wiki purposes. — NY-13021 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Braden Jones[edit]

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

Never played in the NFL, no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE, college sources is mostly passing game mentions and reviews, and several school news paper pieces Delete Secret ^account 17:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence he ever played a meaningful down in the NFL, or any pro league for that matter. Blueboy 96 18:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search reveals that he did indeed play for the Vikings. See here. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he never actually played any games--a search of the current and historical player archive at NFL.com for this guy turns up nothing, and he doesn't appear on the Vikings stat sheets for 2007 or 2008 at vikings.com. WP:ATHLETE says you can't just merely be on the roster, you have to play a meaningful game--and actual evidence that he played a down in the NFL is the only way of saving this article. Blueboy 96 12:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH as he never played in a game.--Giants27(T|C) 15:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have a professional career of actually playing and does not appear to have a noteworthy collegiate career or otherwise meet WP:GNG. Will change my position if I see contrary supporting data.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH, doesnt meet WP:GNG without multiple significant sources of coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The non-trivial coverage that I am finding is principally about his having been charged with attempted robbery, assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, and other crimes, and then transferring from Northwestern to SIU. E.g., this, this, and this. Not really finding non-trivial coverage about his playing career. While the coverage of the criminal charges is non-trivial, I can't see making a notability determination on those incidents alone. Also, basing an article on those incidents raises BLP concerns. If others can point to non-trivial coverage about his football career or other aspects of his life, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Mario Santo Domingo, Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. His only real claim to notability is derivative of his father's. All cited sources are obituaries. Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Those obituaries in major newspapers constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources, establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What do they say that establishes notability independent of his father? And there are no cited sources during his lifetime? What does that say about his notability?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The obituaries are about Julio Mario Santo Domingo, Jr., not his father, so support the son's notability, not the father's. All that the fact that no sources are cited from his lifetime means is that the creator of the article had the good judgement to use sources that give an overview of the subject's life rather than ones about specific news events. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you didn't answer my question, which is what does it state in the obits that support the subject's notability. The fact of an obit in and of itself doesn't cut it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our definition of notability the fact of significant coverage in independent reliable sources does cut it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The obituaries are ones initiated by the news organisations, and not paid death notices. As such, they represent significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources which satisfies WP:GNG. As to why this guy is notable, he was the head of a huge family conglomerate. He was being noted as business person, significant member of a notable family, and likely because he was incredibly wealthy. Perhaps you don't personally think that is notable, but it appears the news media does. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 5 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The obituaries in the article are significant, independent sources from reputable publications, such as Latin American Herald Tribune, El Espectador, El Mundo, and Revista Cromos. The GNG is clearly met. Goodvac (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of vaccine topics[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic and largely random collection of articles, no context provided. Redundant to the much better-organised Category:Vaccination. Many secondary problems with WP:UNDUE in the order and heavy focus on fringe articles about antivaccinationist topics (possibly accidental), but the incoherency of this list is enough in itself.

Quite simply, this isn't a list, this is an attempt to duplicate a category. There's no attempt to organise topics, they're presented in random order, there's no hierarchy, and there's... just generally nothing worth saving. This "article" has no real focus, it's pretty much just WP:CSD A3's article with no content except a restating of the title and a see also section. 86.** IP (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a random group of topics, rather than an encyclopedic listing. Appears to fail WP:LISTN, in that this particular grouping does not appear to be discussed in reliable sourcing. Yobol (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Do you doubt the grouping is relevant? Do you believe that you need a reliable source for every single grouping in all Wikipedia articles? "Human vaccines" list the articles for vaccines developed for disease humans got. Do you doubt that medical encyclopedias and other publications would list these together as vaccines for humans? And do you doubt that the items in the section "Vaccines under research" would have news coverage listing they were under research and calling them vaccines? What section do you have a problem with? Dream Focus 15:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean and rename. I took from it List of people associated with vaccination, including both developers of vaccines and anti-vaccination campaigners, under headings. Will need checking that all the anti-vaccination people are notable. Then take that out of here, and all the other stuff, just keep the vaccines and rename back to List of vaccines, which currently redirects here. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's done, note that "Vaccine critic" is a neologism that's not used in reliable sources. I was researching it for another article. (When put in quotes, it has a mere 5300 ghits, 7 book results, no news results, 10 google scholar, and these are pretty much all trivial mentions. It is NOT a distinct classification, and should not be treated as such.) 86.** IP (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Turn it into a proper list article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly can use some trimming and sourced annotations of many entries would significantly improved the useability of the list, but there's no doubt this list meets the requirements of WP:list and WP:SAL.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Nom argues that this list is duplicative of a category. That is an invalid deletion argument and should be wholly ignored. WP:NOTDUP specificially allows redundancy between lists and categories and is also cited as an argument to avoid in Arguments to avoid --Mike Cline (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I initially suspected this would be relatively redundant of Vaccine, the content is really not; Vaccine ably covers the scientific background/basis of the topic, but much of what is linked to from List of vaccine topics is not covered there as it doesn't quite fall under the scope of what that article concentrates on. Per various parts of WP:LIST (i.e. section "Information"), this article seems acceptable. Kansan (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Yobol, the particular grouping is not discussed in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a SETINDEX article. It is a useful page for navigating topics related to vaccines. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Selection and grouping of items violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE, and is not based on any such listing or grouping in reliable independent sources. Grossly violates WP:NLIST; list items seem to be selected and cherry picked from dubious sources based on their political utility. Strong POV in favor of the fringe anti-vaccinationist view. Clearly violates WP:CFORK, as the content is already present in other articles. Of limited or no navigational value. POV fork of Category:Vaccination. Clearly a politically motivated stunt to promote the anti-vaccinationist cause. No point in keeping the list in the hope that it will one day be improved to the point of encyclopedic significance or utility. If there ever is a genuine need for such a list, it can be created from scratch, not on the basis of this one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it list every single vaccine related article in Wikipedia? It isn't cherry picked if it list everything. And it certainly does not violated WP:CFORK. Dream Focus 15:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Wikipedia:LIST - Navigation section in the Manual of Style for lists. The article is functional as a means to navigate topics regarding vaccines and vaccination, particularly when people may not know the terms and/or terminology they are searching for. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's REALLY badly done... 86.** IP (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss specifically what you don't like about it on the talk page and work towards improvement. Not liking an article is never a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 15:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia rules state you don't destroy a list article because you prefer categories instead, the two can both exist. Listing related articles, all of them blue links, aids in navigation, and helps people find what they are looking for. Perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 15:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GBM (GARBAGE MAN) rapper[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability threshold of WP:MUSICBIO. No references are given to support the content of the article and I was unable to find third-party coverage of this rapper or the hip-hop collectives Manksters Inc (MKI) and M16. Pichpich (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO; I also note that the creator's only edit is to this page, so it may also be a WP:COI matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is clearly problematic. Nobody wants to keep the article as it stands - calls are either for deleting or for renaming, rewriting or merging, with no agreement on any solution, though a strongest call for deletion, the safest course is to delete the article and the various names it has been called, and to offer to userfy the material so it can be worked on away from mainspace. There is some sense in the suggestion that a section should first be started in Iranian Azerbaijanis and split out from there when ready.. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Azerbaijani people in Iran[edit]

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

Claim of Genocide with no RS. I myself couldn't find any reliable content supporting the claim in English. Rafy talk 15:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to WP:Partisanship , "Partisanship is the tendency of supporters of political parties to subscribe to or at leastsupport their party's views and policies in contrast to those of other parties. Extreme partisanship is sometimes referred to as partisan warfare (see Political party)". I think that article is an exact example of Partisanship , contrasting with WP:NPOV.Besides that , the page seems to be a test page :A page created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. Having no reference and no other standards of Wikipedia ... --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 22:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unconfirmable sources that, judging by URLs, don't appear to be WP:RS. Smells of WP:POV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Genocide is a serious accusation that requires independent scholarly verification. Wikipedia's policy is "“Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” ". The user who has created this page, appears to be on disruptive ultra-nationalist Pan-Turkist editor, trying to blame the victims of the well-known well-documented Assyrian Genocide and Armenian Genocide by Turkey, for a fictitious genocide against "Turks" [11], which reinforce the idea that this page is nothing but nationalist WP:Soapboxing that should be speedy deleted, and the user in question should be blocked from further disrupting Wikipedia with his hate filled nationalist agenda targeting other ethnic groups in such a manner. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin:I am not a Pan-Turkist or ultra nationalist as Kurdo777 wants to intend.Likely Kurdo777 is an ultra nationalist (a Pan Kurdist, Pan Iranist , Pan Farsist or ...) and by accusation like this wants to eclipse his distorted and subversive activities in favor of Kurds and against Azerbaijani people.He cannot tolerate even a flag of Azerbaijani people of Iran Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of South Azerbaijan.However, many minorities and even states and provinces in Europe and U.S have their own flag.They confuse here with a totalitarian state, and with different false scandals and accusations want to impose their ideas to others.I do not have any problem with Armenians or Assyrians.I only write part of bloody history of Azerbaijani people of Iran.This article is not related to Assyrians and Armenians problems with Turkey. I condole with all nations which were exposed to genocide.Orartu (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Genocide ?!!! It's a pure POV, plus there aren't any reliable sources for it. In fact 11:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Jalal Al-e-Ahmad a Persian writer in his book "In the Service and Betrayal of Intellectuals" about cultural genocide of Azerbaijani people in Iran has written:"Tehran government, if not politically and economically - but certainly in terms of culture, considers Azerbaijan as its colony and the first abuse of this cultural colonialism is killing Azerbaijani language and culture".Jalal Al-e-Ahmad's quotation is neutral, and reliable about this issue.Because he is a famous Persian writer not Azerbaijani--Orartu (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not using the above source properly at all. There is a big difference between Killing people and Killing the language or culture. I strongly believe that there is no such thing as Genocide, and this article should be deleted. In fact 09:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus he is not quoting the book correctly, nor is Jalal Al-Ahmad a scholar. I do not think he knows the definition of Genocide. There is an article Iranian Azerbaijanis which he can mention the Pahlavid era based on WP:RS Western sources. Else the current list of weblogs, psuedo-scholarly writings and non-English publications (many from websites) are not WP:RS. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that non-english sources are fine (per WP:NONENG), but of course they must still satisfy WP:RS. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I am a female user, you must say she not he.Most of the sources are books which printed in Iran.--Orartu (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pure partisanship and POV pushing. No reliable source has ever made such claim about Iranian Azerbaijan.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Since some of the material may be useful, I suggest renaming the article to Rights of Azerbaijanis in Iran and improving it. Atabəy (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The nominator actually suggested to rename this article himself [12], I second that. Neftchi (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - page has been renamed Anti-Azerbaijani agitations in Iran (with an intermediate version at Anti-Azerbaijani agitation in Iran). LadyofShalott 17:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

extended commentary about "genocide" vs. "agitation" and some tangentially relevant issues

"Comment about the changing the name of article" : Definition of genocide is almost clear . But it is not clear what social acts are named as agitations . As I am reading the sources , almost in none of them a single term of agitations has been used . What does it means ?!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment on comenting":ultra-nationalist Persian movements specially in Pahlavi period against the Azerbaijani people of Iran, their language, history, identity and ....[13]--Orartu (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the page Agitation (political) , the meaning is exactly the opposite .

An agitator is a person who actively supports some ideology or movement with speeches and especially actions.
.But anyway , there is also another article , that uses the word in other meaning :Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu . In this article , and associated articles , the word tends to mean "mass protests, riots, student and political movements" .None of the meanings are used in any of the sources , regardless of sources to be reliable or not .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment on comenting":Bu there are many usages of word genocide in these sources , anyway.Agitation and agitate meanings in English language:

"1.To arouse interest in (a cause, for example) by use of the written or spoken word; debate.

"1.Excitement of public feeling by discussion, appeals, etc.; as, the antislavery agitation; labor agitation".

"2.the act of moving something vigorously; the shaking or stirring of something"

"3.the act of attempting to stir up public opinion for or against something"

"4.Agitation refers to the process of moving something forcefully or violently".

For more meanings of these words see:[14],[15] [16] and [17] , please stop finding false faults.--Orartu (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for showing me the dictionary . And where in the sources , regardless of reliability of that sources , the word "Agitation" is used ? And if you think the word genocide is used in that articles , then why you changed the Wiki's article name ? Indeed , if we are talking about a topic , then what is the topic ? Agitation , Genocide , cultural assimilation , demonstrations , violation of human rights ?! Every one of these concepts may have their own article ! If you still believe you are writing about the genocide , then what's the "Agitation" ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou're welcome.I thought you couldn't find dictionary.This article is about Anti-Azerbaijani agitations in Iran.The sources support this. This article involve all Anti-Azerbaijani agitations which are created by ultra-nationalists in Iran, such as encouragement for cultural assimilation, denial of identity,...--Orartu (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is a fork as we have already Anti-Turkism, Iranian Azeris, Ethnic minorities in Iran, and host of such articles. Some of the authors are random people (some even Azeri like Javad Shaykh ol Eslami who is from Zanjan and is not Persian) who have expressed variety of opinions. If there is any real sources in this article, they should be merged to here: [18] (ethnic status in Iran), with a portion for the Pahlavi era. Sure that article needs a cleanup, but at least the sources are verifiable and in English. The current article is simply original research copied from several blogs/papers. It needs some serious non-regional (people not from the region) sources who are WP:RS (not those quoting poorpirar or claiming Sumerian are Turks,,.. but Western authors. For example Tadsuez Swietchowski is much more neutral.. these can be put in Iranian Azeris). WIkipedia only uses reliable authors (Professors and works that are well cited by other academicians). The current article is cut & paste OR. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentMost of sources are Persian books which written by Persians.Bring reliable source for your claim about eyhnicity of Javad Shaykh ol Eslami, but because of his views he is surely a Pan Iranist or Pan Farsist.If wikipedia only uses reliable authors (Professors and works that are well cited by other academicians), then all the non sense and false claims of Ahmad Kasravi and other Pan-Iranists about Azerbaijani people must be omitted.Because writers such as Kasravi, Javad Mashkur and ... were not full professors nor scholars.Pan-Iranist and Pan-Farsist people want to exterminate Azerbaijani identity, language and culture snd they also deny the Azerbaijani identity of this nation

[19], all the users who want deletion of this article seems to be ultra-nationalist, they are not neutral about Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani people of Iran --Orartu (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)--Orartu (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Shaykh Ol Eslami is random author from Zanjan (and an Azeri) [20]. We do not quote random authors just for the sake of it. And you cannot label him pan something if there is no reliable source. It is like quoting random blogs. If you want to create an article on Javad Shaykh Eslami (if he is notable enough), then you may attribute a quote to him. As per Kasravi, he is also an Azeri. So is Mahmud Afshar Yazdi who is two generations Azeri. But wikipedia hardly uses Kasravi, Afshar.etc. Kasravi though is deemed reliable by Richard Frye, Minorsky and others. He has been quoted by them. But Kasravi is not mentioned a single time in "Azerbaijani people" unlike what you claim. Prof. Mashkur is a full Professor of Tehran university (not a random lecturer), but he is not used at all in English wikipedia. Also your translations of quotes could be unreliable as well as you are quoting websites, and do not have the original scanned books. The convention in Wikipedia English is to use scholarly Western sources and not intrepretation of quotes from regional authors. So the article is a major violation of WP:OR and WP:synthesis. Also please mind WP:SOAPBOX. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Wikipedia articles like [21] is not reliable, there is not neutral source in it.Show reliable source for P.H degree of Javad Mashkur too.Is he a full professor of Pan-Iranist field?Bring western and neutral sources about ethnicity of Afshar Yazdi too--Orartu (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Your not making sense. The article is in Persian about Javad Shaykh Eslami. But he is not a notable scholar in my opinion . I just wanted to point out that he is Zanjani (you can search for it yourself). Also again watch WP:SOAPBOX. But Javad Mashkur is not quoted in English Wikipedia. If you have a problem with him in Persian wikipedia, go bring it up there. As per Dr. Afshar Yazdi..it is in one of his own biographies. But do you have any source about his ethnicity? Besides he is another random auuthor and you cannot state random opinion of authors as a Wikipedia article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment They were Pan Iranists.They were against Azerbaijani people of Iran.Their writings are not neutral,because they are ultra-nationalists[22],I am not interested in any ultra-nationalist person, then they are not important for me to bother myself about them. --Orartu (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Comment what occurs in other wikipedias is not a concern here. What matters is western scholarly sources describing what you have mentioned. Furthermore, there is a section about this in Iranian Azeris. Then there is a section in Anti-Turkism. Wikipedia cannot continously fork articles. Choose a single article among these please. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        CommentBut you reported my contributions in English wikipedia to [23] in Farsi wikipedia and he reported to one of admins [24] in negative form.This article is not related to Anti-Turkism, it is completely related to the sufferings of suppressed and disadvantaged Azerbaijani people of Iran[25].This issue is so extensive and painful that it needs an independent article.--Orartu (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Please bring Western scholarly sources on the issue. The current article as it stands is original research. Much better studies have been done by the likes of say Tadsuez Swietchowski. In order to have a balanced article, you can definitely include reliable items in the Iranian-Azeris article. But the current state of the article is simply WP:OR, as none of the sources talk about disadvantaged and suppressed. What a few authors (like the azeri author Shaykh ol Eslami) writes cannot be considered "disadvantage". 1000s of people state their opinions and it does not make noticeable for wikipedia unless the person is notable. Also loaded terms like "ultranatiolist" and "pan-Iranist" need secondary Western sources or else it is not reliable. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment'You said:"But most Iranians are not fond of inciting ethnic hatred".But Persian people humiliate Azerbaijani people and give them scornful titles like Donkey[26], every day Persian people with tellng scornful and offensive jokes against Azerbaijani people contempt them[27].In other words, Azerbaijani people of Iran are scorn of Persian people.[28] [29] [30] This is famous poem of Azerbaijani poet Mohammad-Hossein Shahriarwho referred to these ill-treatments.[31]All these ill-treatments are related to this issue that Azerbaijani people of Iran only want to keep their identity, languge,culture, history,... but Ultra-nationalist Persians cannot tolerate these and with any device, including humiliation,want to break the resistance of the Azerbaiani people in defending their granted rights[32].--Orartu (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment' As per "Genocide" I searched in google books and no such reliable items were found. However, the Mongol massacare of Persia (majority of whose troops were Turks) is considered a genocide in some books. But most Iranians are not fond of inciting ethnic hatred. These sort of ethnic hatred stuff has been exported from USSR and now Caucasus. It has no basis in Iran, and in the end it will not work. This sort of work is done by lobbyist in Wikipedia and it brings out no benefit. I guess some people are intent on starting ethnic civil wars in the region for geopolitical benefits. Are they sure that its smoke will not reach their eyes? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment'These sort of ethnic hatred stuff has been invented by Persian people of Iran and they want to export this to other regions too.[33]Most of Iranians are not fond of inciting ethnic hatred but majority of Persian people of Iran are[ltbjyaE&sa=U&ei=sgyXTtL5Mo_74QTMrfGvBA&ved=0CBAQtwIwADgU&usg=AFQjCNF2IqjUzF_IAqKKzVuBFj3Nu-WVZA] [34].If you want I can bring source for you. You are the activist of this sort of people, both in Farsi wikipedia and English wikipedia. Turks and Mongols are completely different nations.[35]Turkish people were massacared by Mongols too, specially members of Turkish clan of Kharazmshahi[36].This happened once in past, but Anti-Azerbaijani agitations in Iran are repeated every day--Orartu (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment . The bulk of the Mongol troops were actually Turks. From the 10th century Oghuz Nomads to actually the Qajar times, many actual massacares occured against native Iranian speakers. But these things are not publicized because they simply create ethnic hatred (like you have in Armenia/Azerbaijan countries). As per "anti-Azerbaijani agitations in Iran" being "repeated" everyday, the current title is POV. There is no google books/scholars mentioning this. You need WP:RS sources. Begzaar beh Farsi behet begooyam. Setiz/nabard raah andaakhtan miyaan-e mardomaan-e Iran beh sood hichkas nist. In qabul keh rejimeh Iran hoqooq-e bashar mardom raa raa'ayat nemikonad. Vali inkeh bein zabaanhaayeh mokhtalef dar Iran kineh dorost konim kaareh besiyaar naashaayesti hast. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Use English only on this, the English Wikipedia.But look at here and your suggestions to this user [37].Telling scornful jokes against Azerbaijani people and addressing them with titles like Donkey are done by ordinary Persian people too[38], You can see different ordinary Persians blogs about these issues,can you deny these issues?[39] Orinary Pesians like you in Farsi wikipedia distort Azerbaijani people's history, language, identity,....--Orartu (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is still fork of Iranian Azeris. If there is a new article needed about human rights, and Iranian Azeris, anti-turkism, ethnic minorities in Iran, Human rights in Iran are not sufficient, then one can consider "human rights in Iran". There is no other wikipedia article with titles such as "Anti-X agitations in Y". An article on human rights can be comprehensive and state all positions. But the current article is just onesided POV pushing with hardly any real sources. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf Mongols did any injustice against Persians, why Azerbaijani people of Iran must atone?However, the Azerbaijani-inhabited regions of Iran were also destroyed in Mongols' invasions.Azerbaijani people and other Turkiush peoples were massacared too[40].Commanders are important, because they command to soldiers.Bring also neutral western sources about your historical claims about presence of Oghuz Turks in Mongols' army, remember that Turks themselves have been victims in Mongols' attacks and assaults.Oppressions and repressions against Azerbaijanis in Iran are very high and vast, the sufferings of Azerbaijani people of Iran need an independant article.If Persians think Mongols did bad against other peoples, why they do same things against other peoples specially Azerbaijanis?Evil on behalf of everyone is bad. --Orartu (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment on Commenting" This page tends to be place to talk about deleting the page or keeping it . This is not a general chat room . I think if user Orartu continue to use this page against the Wikipedian rule of WP:Soap , that will make any closing admin so tired to read all comments , and the out come will be something such as "No consensus" - that means no one will be able to read the bulk of comments !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment on Commenting" It is your idea, all my writings are related to defend this article. Khodabandeh14 confuse here with chatroom and begins one disscussion, and I only say my opinion. --Orartu (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks Alborz, you are right. My final comment to Orartu,.. Azerbaijan was not speaking Turkish during the Mongol era and over a dozen massacares (not the light weal stuff of this article) occured in history from Turks against Iranians. However, Iranians are not racist to constantly focus on these issues. Your WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPA make discussion fruitless. And also IRI is not "Persian" and your generalization shows your level of hatred. I already voted delete and I am not going to further engage with you here.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentAny way you want.The dominant culture in IRI is Persian culture.Because only Persian language, Persian history, Persian culture is official in Iran not other minorities'.[41] [42] [43]I have no hatred in any ethnic, I only defend from realities.Bring again neutral and reliable western source written with a Full Professor of famous and reliable university about your claims about ethnic of Azerbaijani people.--Orartu (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iranian Azerbaijanis. (Or more precisely, move to Status of Azerbaijani people in Iran without a redirect, then redirect that article, so that we don't get a redirect from the unfounded genocide claims, but still preserve the history in case there's anything to be salvaged.) "Agitation" is totally vague and unhelpful. A NPOV article like Status of Azerbaijani people in Iran could be fine and could address all sides of the issue, but essentially that content is already located in Iranian Azerbaijanis. I'm not sure if this is a POV fork because that natural parent article is locked down or what--and I'm not inclined to wade into ethnic disputes here to figure out the whole history... Right now this article is basically incoherent. If any content could be rewritten in NPOV understandable English, it should begin as a section in Iranian Azerbaijanis, where it will get more eyes and input. There, it could be integrated into the history section or into the section on the status of the ethnic group. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Anti-Azerbaijanism in Iran is better name if it needs be renamed again.--Orartu (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt — [[[Iranian Azerbaijanis]] is the NPOV name for this topic and it already exists. There is nothing obvious to merge. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - CommentUser:Khodabandeh14, intentionally has entered some of the irrevalent materials of Iranian Azerbaijanis to ruin this article.This article wants to show the tragic situation of Iranian Azerbaijanis, specially in terms of cultural and racial aspects

Comment Statements such as This article wants... are direct evidence of POV. The only thing a wikipedia article can/should want is to be a good article on the named topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—i think statements such as this article wants... are much more likely to be direct evidence of their author's not being a native speaker of english. i don't know azerbaijani, but it's normal in at least some languages to say "X wants to Y" to mean "the purpose of X is to do Y".— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment point taken. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—Orartu, please, please, don't change your remarks after people have responded to them. it makes it very, very difficult for newcomers to follow the conversation. if you change your mind about what you want to say, please use ~~strikethrough~~ so that everyone can easily understand the comments that follow in response to your old versions.15:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
commentYou are right.Thanks for your helps and guidances.--Orartu

(talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUser:Khodabandeh14, intentionally has added some of the irrevalent materials of Iranian Azerbaijanis to ruin this article.--Orartu (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: To Anti-Azeri sentiments. and provide more RS. I suggest Orartu to take a look at Anti-Turkism.Farhikht (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion. Merge/redirect discussion can take place on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital storage oscilloscope[edit]

Digital storage oscilloscope (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 speedy. This is so badly written as to be barely recognisable as English, let alone an article on oscilloscopes. If suggesting "merge", please point out just which fragment is worth merging. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oscilloscope#Digital storage oscilloscope where the subject is already mentioned. The reference in the article should be added to the target which can be expanded from this source. Useful search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Agreed that the original article was hopeless, but it's changed since. If it stagnates before being fully developed it can always be merged back into Oscilloscope and leave a redirect behind; there is no need to delete it then either. With that in mind I would request the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Jeh (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to redirect unless there's a lot of expansion in the article. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as above. What little there is that's not in that article can be merged, but most of it is covered there already.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator stated that "We need an article at Digital storage oscilloscope, and this is appropriate for a stand-alone article, not a merge to Oscilloscope" but then when I happened to do exactly this, after he suggested I look at the topic, he nominated the article for deletion instead. The nomination thus seems to be personal or pointy in nature. Warden (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article in its current state appears to be referenced by tertiary book sources, and by a Wired Magazine article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added this source to a new 'Further reading' section in the article, to further qualify topic notability: Hickman, Ian (1997.) "Digital storage oscilloscopes." Newnes. ISBN 0-7506-2856-1. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic, with many reliable sources furnishing extensive coverage. It is appropriate to have this stand-alone article in addition to the brief summary in the general article on oscilloscopes. Satisfies WP:N. If it needs more ediging, or the addition of more references from the ample supply (see Google Book search results, numbering over 11,000), then fix it.The nominator should realize that this is not a forum to award points or demerits for how well or poorly an article is written, but instead to discuss whether there are reliable sources with significant coverage to establish the notability of the topic. Edison (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smooth[edit]

Steve Smooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Musician of questionable notability. Unreferenced, all provided external links are primary sites. Google news search on "Steve Smooth" shows little to no significant coverage from reliable sources - mainly simple listings. Standard search shows mainly primary sources and social media. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant, reliable references. Can't even confirm a majority of his music even exists. Bgwhite (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found some event announcements but no significant coverage about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trailing Cable[edit]

Trailing Cable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed by IP, presumably author, stating that a reference was coming. Concern was "No reliable sources to show notability. No evidence that the award mentioned in this article exists." I cannot find any coverage of this band or the award that would make them notable and thus suitable for inclusion. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a band that has released no music, won a Central England Young Performers award which I cannot verify, and in fact cannot even find the award. Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no significant coverage for this band in reliable sources. If they won that award, it's not enough to satisfy criterion 8 of WP:BAND, and they don't appear to meet any of the guideline's other criteria, or WP:GNG, at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Paragliding.. Article boldly reverted to the state it was in before the controversial, POV edits. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraglider[edit]

Paraglider (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 page has recently been heavily edited by user:joefaust in an effort to push his own highly controversial PoV on this subject. His changes to Paragliding are under discussion and that page is currently locked. Paragliding fatalities, also created by user:joefaust, is currently being considered for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paragliding_fatalities. His changes to this page are, in part, an effort to circumvent those constraints. My recommendation is that this article be replaced by a redirect to the Paragliding page, which already contains the same information as the pre edit version of this page. If there is a case for creating a page containing some of Joe's edits then it should be made on the talk:paragliding page and a page linked from there added only if a consensus is achieved. Jontyla (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy redirect as WP:FORK. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy redirect - completely agree with this page as WP:FORK. Paragliders are fully explained at paragliding and this is simply an extreme, minority opinion trying to bypass the correct description. 88xxxx (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support a speedy redirect to Paragliding. A separate article on Paraglider is unnecessary -- and this one is written in gibberish. Manormadman (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Annunzio[edit]

Percy Annunzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Possible autobiographical article about a poet of incredibly suspect notability. Google search on "Percy Annunzio" shows only one result. Ignoring the personal site reference, the only other provided reference appears to be a hoax - a free website host masquerading as a newspaper - the only actual content there is an article about the subject. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evident coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:V as well as the general notability guideline. Deor (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too have not been able to find reliable sources--there is , for example, nothing in WorldCat, and the claim in the article does not really lead me to think there is likely to be at a further search. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kunbi#Maratha-Kunbi. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Kunabi[edit]

Maratha Kunabi (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 Kunbi page has recently been expanded and most of the information here is captured there. A delete would help make way for a redirect. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for deletion to make way for a redirect. Redirection can be achieved simply by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - The nominator is not requesting deletion, thus AFD is the wrong forum. This should be discussed att eh article's talk page if controversial, or just boldly redirected. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freakyclown[edit]

Freakyclown (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 verification of any of the claimed grounds for notability. Has been tagged requesting citations for > 6 months. Kevin McE (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking notability. I can't find anything on this guy other than social networking and one other hit which is apparently copied from here. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either made up or a vanity page W Nowicki (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE non-notable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jime[edit]

The Jime (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 are two sources in this article: 1) 'Planet Rockabilly USA', with no URL or publication information. Google doesn't find any references to 'Planet Rockabilly USA' aside from The Jime's own sites and posts. 2) 'anchormans stray cat site', which is a dead link to what looks like someone's personal site on euronet.nl. I've looked, and I'm not able to find more sources. As such, I think this article fails the general notability guideline and the notability criteria for musicians. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I added one reference (an article in a small alternative weekly). But I have been unable to find any coverage in Danish newspapers or magazines. And was unable to find coverage sources with quotes on the band website (for example, the German magazine Rockin' Fifties does not list an article for this band in its contents (Rockin' Fifties History) or (lexikon/inhalt) pages.) As such, unless some other coverage can be found, there doesn't seem to be enough here to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:06, 13 September 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, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per my comment above, this fails WP:GNG. No demonstration of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wasn't able to find any more coverage in reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: this AfD was not transcluded onto the daily log, when it was relisted

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playerist[edit]

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

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

Disputed PROD. Concern was Non notable web site, blog, journal, or newspaper - a Zine. Not yet published or in circulation. Does not meet criteria at WP:GNG. ClaretAsh (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A page/project in its infancy that should not yet be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.123.73 (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it gets published and becomes notable, then someone with no COI will come here and write it up. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khosrow Motazed Amoli[edit]

Khosrow Motazed Amoli (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 WP:PROD. I have asked if this living person's could be transliterated into English differently. I note that the corresponding Persian Wikipedia article for this living person includes some controversy. For now, my !vote is neutral. Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the BLPPROD, refer to WP:BLPPROD for an explanation of why this is not removed until there are some reliable sources. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of no sources detectable at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nearly unintelligable, bizzare dating system, no reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bushranger, the dates in the article are in the "Hijri" calendar--Shirt58 (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I figured it was something like that. Still non-comprehensible to the majority of Wikipedia readers though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No race of any sources. Disruptive editor creating nearly unintelligible stuff and then edit-warring about even simple maintenance tags (not just BLPPROD and AFD tags like here). --Crusio (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is a machine translation of the lead section of the Persian Wikipedia article. In that state it is pretty useless, and if anyone wants to create a proper translation they will still have the Persian article available if we delete ours. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not established, unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, article would need a complete rewrite in any case. Because of the notability concerns, I don't see a way even to stub-salvage the article. As an aside, dates should be provided using the standard Western calendar, though the local calendar dates may also be provided in the article, per WP:YEAR#Year numbering systems and WP:YEAR#Calendars. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to lack "significant coverage" in WP:RS as is therefore likely non-notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasgij Jigsaw Puzzles[edit]

Wasgij Jigsaw Puzzles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Overly promotional page for an innovative line of jigsaw puzzles. The only sources listed in the article are the manufacturer and designer and I couldn't find any substantial, reliable sources on line. This appears to be a niche product that simply doesn't meet the standard of WP:N. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING ClaretAsh (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Overly promotional and it fails to make any case as to why this form of jigsaw is distinctly notable from other jigsaws. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hezekiah Jubilee Calendar[edit]

Hezekiah Jubilee Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant original research, probably containing significant amount of nonsense; whatever it is, it most certainly does not date back to anywhere near Hezekiah of Judah... --- AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree that it appears to be original research, and seems to fail WP:SOAP. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to publish your cockamamie theory. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I simply can't agree that "The graphic was copied from a very ancient Hebrew book found in the Drew University library many years ago with the resulting loss of the citation" is a valid reference to a reliable source, and also for reasons too many to list but hinted at by AnonMoos, ClaretAsh and Mangoe above. Whew! Also, we have the excellent article Hebrew calendar, which is well-referenced and describes in detail what the reliable sources say about the actual topic, not fantasies about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, and badly done at that. First Light (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crestfallen (communication)[edit]

Crestfallen (communication) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is nothing more than a simple dictionary definition - already done much better on Wiktionary. Biker Biker (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although not that bad, an article on the topic of being crestfallen should be possible but it probably would not be under that title, this one is really about the expression not the state so fails WP:Not a dictionary.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Kitfoxxe. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ince there is a consensus to keep this article. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Sniper Rifle[edit]

Alejandro Sniper Rifle (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 no expert on this subject," is a gross understatement, but the article itself mentions that this particular firearm was only in production for ~2 years, and had no significant attention paid to it. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very minor, but it does seem to exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone please write a bot to detect AfD "arguments" straight out of WP:ATA and put them in special typeface -- perhaps white characters on a white background? EEng (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Context is everything. "Little attention paid to it"...because it's from Cuba. Systemetic bias, anyone? Finding sources is a pain but military equipment, especially weapons, is almost invariably notable and article-worthy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this search would not appear to assist retention of the article. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Its existence is confirmed. Strangely enough, Cuba is unlikely to be big on posting details of its military technology on the internet! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article doesn't say it was only in production for two years, but that it was in the design process for two years. It appears to be currently in service and is therefore clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a case where WP:IAR is acceptable - given Cuba's political isolation, obtaining thorough sourcing on their military equipment is problematic and I doubt the CIA will allow us access to their files! An equivalent weapon in a Western country would be considered notable and probably easily sourced (which I consider a valid argument of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS given systemetic bias) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dixon (footballer born 1989)[edit]

Joe Dixon (footballer born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer who fails the football notability guideline by never having played in a fully-professional league. The guideline makes it clear that being registered with a club in such a league isn't enough. Insufficient media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has been speedily deleted twice before as a hoax; even if the individual is real, he is certainly not notable. Giant Snowman 10:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for the subject to pass WP:GNG and he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject is a world away from meeting either the football notability guideline or the general notability guideline. The first citation is itself a hoax - as the comments at the foot show, this was a Wikipedia inspired "crap article" with an invented storyline. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 and salt - blatant hoax, once a hoax, always a hoax, 'nuff said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. FkpCascais (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If real isn't notable per WP:GNG or WP:Footy. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Salt if necessary. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not played at a notable level as per WP:NFOOTY. Also, a severe lack of any significant media coverage fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 19:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (author blanked). (non-admin closure) Swarm 06:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons versus Dinosaurs[edit]

Dragons versus Dinosaurs (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 self-published book. Does not meet WP:BOOK. Crusio (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination statement. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published or not, notability hasn't been established. Fails WP:GNG ClaretAsh (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this discussion and the explicit request by the author who blanked the page (CSD G7). Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xtoriez[edit]

Xtoriez (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 self-published book. Does not meet WP:BOOK. Crusio (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published or not, notability hasn't been established. Fails WP:GNG ClaretAsh (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The O.C. (season 2). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Risky Business[edit]

The Risky Business (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 notability has yet been established; the {{notability}} tag appeared for at least two years. Even with ratings and citations, no one talks about this episode anymore currently, not even books or articles, aside from news about ratings. Previously proposed for deletion per WP:PROD; a contestor removed the proposal for me to create this discussion. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Please do not confuse this episode of The O.C. with the movie Risky Business. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)~~ I vote delete. --Gh87 (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect to The_O.C._(season_2)#Episodes? Edgepedia (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to referencing and notability issues. No need for redirect due to lack of notability. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry: I will rebirth that page into a redirect after that article is deleted under consensus. --Gh87 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grandchildren of Lennart Bernadotte[edit]

Grandchildren of Lennart Bernadotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neither notable nor of general interest. Bad precedent. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the descendents appear to be notable in their own right. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Asch.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alin Goia[edit]

Alin Goia (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. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment was previously deletet per BLPPROD. See here. -- kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Liga I is on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues so Goia and Enghin (not Gligor) would seem to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. I may have misunderstood this policy. I'm quite new to this part of WP.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have misunderstood the guideline. In order to pass WP:NSPORT, a footballer must actually play in a fully pro league. While Goia and Enghin are both contracted to a Liga I club, neither has played any matches so far. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. I should have checked the infobox "Appearances 0". I withdraw my weak keep.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM City General Santos[edit]

SM City General Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

clear violation of WP:NOT DIRECTORY and WP:CORP Rxlxm (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mall isn't even open yet. Non-notable shopping center, completed or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable mall. Keb25 (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Lanterns#Laira. Per rationale by Jclemens (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laira (comics)‎[edit]

Laira (comics)‎ (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. The fictional character as a stand-alone subject does not meet the general notability guideline as she lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also, she does not have reception or significance in reliable secondary sources, making any article about unsuitable for Wikipedia since it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. A quick search engine test does not show evidence to presume otherwise, so this article should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with well-structured nom. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_Green_Lanterns#Laira per WP:ATD and the fact that that article appears to be its' WP:SS parent. Assertions about the character can be WP:Verified through primary sources, and notability concerns will be eliminated by merging to the list of characters in a clearly notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_Green_Lanterns#Laira per rationale by Jclemens.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guardians of the Universe#Guardians known by name. Per rational given by TriiipleThreat (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scar (comics)[edit]

Scar (comics) (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. There is no evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that any article about her can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. A quick search engine test does not show anything different to presume that the fictional character deserves a stand-alone article, as all that appears are unreliable sources, trivial mentions or plot descriptions of Green Lantern comics, nothing resembling reception or significance in the real world. Jfgslo (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Guardians of the Universe#Guardians known by name. Not all the alternatives to deletion have been exhausted. The current information can summarized and housed in its parent article while notability is established for a stand alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bizarro World. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Lantern[edit]

Yellow Lantern (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. The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and as a subject it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work, suitable for a fansite, not for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Bizarro World, where the character is already covered, albeit in not as much detail. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the merging. Yellow Lantern is a constant fixture of Bizarro World. Bizarro World has an article, thus the lesser Bizarros should be covered there --DrTofu83 (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bizarro has an article. Only fair this character gets one as well. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bizarro World. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guardians of the Universe#Guardians known by name. Tone 14:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sayd[edit]

Sayd (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. There is no evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject since there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. More importantly, the character does not have reception or significance in reliable secondary sources, making any article about it a plot-only description of a fictional work that cannot be treated in an encyclopedic manner, and, thus, the subject is not suitable for a stand-alone article. A quick search engine test only shows unreliable sources, primary sources, tertiary sources that treat the character with regard to the plot exclusively or trivial mentions, implicating a lack of significant coverage as notability requires verifiable evidence. Jfgslo (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Guardians of the Universe#Guardians known by name. Not all the alternatives to deletion have been exhausted. The current information can summarized and housed in its parent article while notability is established for a stand alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per TriiipleThreat. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of music artists by recording studio[edit]

List of music artists by recording studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Obvious example of an endless, indiscriminate list, the list could be useful as a disambig page, but this isn't. Delete Secret ^account 05:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, notwithstanding its title, it's listing musicians by record label, not by recording studio, so it got confused right out of the gate. I'm particularly amazed that this has survived largely unchanged and apparently unnoticed for several years, with just whatever random handful of rappers were on someone's mind when they spent five minutes starting this. Obviously if complete this would be too big to function as a single list: to merely list record labels requires splits and subdivisions (see Category:Lists of record labels), so cross-listing them with every musician they ever represented would get really ridiculous if kept in one place. Turns out we already have a ton of separate lists for various record labels, at Category:Lists of artists by record label, so that task is already well under way. We could have a list of lists to organize those lists in various ways in a manner complementary to that category, but as none of the current content would be helpful in that endeavor, delete per nom. postdlf (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Postdlf. After the deletion, consider redirecting to Category:Lists of artists by record label. (Although, upon further consideration, that may not be an appropriate redirect, because it has nothing to do with "recording studios".) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Postdlf. Recording studios are too fluid as a way to organize artists. Perhaps record label is what they meant. There's probably a way to better organize the lists of artists by record label as well. Dzlife (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Postdlf. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close: the nomination is for the deletion of the now allegedy obsolete non-free image used not for the article. Take to WP:FFD. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson K770[edit]

Sony Ericsson K770 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Invalid Non-Free picture claim, phone is/has been on sale so this picture IS replaceable with a free one. Mt king ^(edits) 05:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. This might be controversial, but since a list is present, redirecting makes more sense (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway City‎‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gateway City

Articles for deletion/Gateway City (2nd nomination)

Gateway City‎‎ (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 fictional city does not meet the general notability guideline as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As a topic, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia since there are no secondary sources that provide reception or significance in the real world for the fictional city, which makes any stand-alone article about it a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Sharkey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey

Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (4th nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (5th nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (6th nomination)

Jonathon Sharkey (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 is with great sadness that I put this artice up for deletion again. Even though I once nominated it and vehemently supported deleting it, the article's notability has grown on me during the good article nomination. However, Sharkey has requested that the article be deleted due to claims make against him on the talk page. I would suggest deleting it, because keeping it will only cause more trouble. SOXROX (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I cantparticipate in the discussion right now and probably will not communicate for a while. I'm taking a wikibreak- Look at my user page for more details. SOXROX (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—"will only cause more trouble" doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason for deletion. dude's clearly notable, both from sources in article and from google news search, which suggests that dozens more could be added. perhaps subject of article could read up on streisand effect and if he still wants to, take his problems with the talk page to an oversighter?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. While I'm obviously sad to be put in this position, we do have a policy to delete articles on living subjects if they ask us to. And Sharkey has clearly expressed that desire. Difluoroethene (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Keep Sorry Jonathon, but you're clearly notable (per Alf.laylah.wa.laylah), and you don't get to control the content of your own Wikipedia entry. Difluoroethene (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry... where exactly is this deletion-on-subject's-request policy? That seems inconceivable to me. EEng (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question—is it something other than WP:BLPDEL? because i don't see that that one applies here, with all the sources that there are. if there is unsourced negative info, it ought to be a prod rather than an afd?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be PROD? It's the fifth AFD nom! SOXROX (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that's what the wp:blp says; afd is to decide if subject's notable. if there are unsourced negative statements it should be prod until they're sourced. i can't find any other policy that says delete articles on people just because the people don't like them, which is why i'm asking you if i'm missing something.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy. Silver seren^C 06:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're right; I remembered wrong. One of the criteria for speedy deletion is if the author of the article requests deletion; I mistakenly believed that also applied to the subject of the article. I guess it doesn't. Difluoroethene (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sharkey is a public figure. He's run for state and national office, has sat on Republican Party committees, has participated in numerous TV and radio interviews, has been detailed in a documentary film. He's participated in promoting his own image on Wikipedia. He requested that the current picture of himself be used, for example. It's too bad if he doesn't like that some of the attention he gets isn't to his liking; Wikipedia shouldn't be a PR machine. Just because some of his claims in the past are now being discussed and he doesn't like them doesn't seem like a reason to eliminate the entry.PurityOfEssence (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree with you, Wikipedia should not be a PR machine. So why is the fact that he gave his own photo

relevant?--Screwball23 talk 04:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out that Sharkey is apparently ok with having this article exists as long as he can control it's content. Now that there's talk of including things in it that he doesn't like, he's asked for a deletion. I don't think that this is how Wikipedia should work.PurityOfEssence (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support deletion - The majority of the sources on Sharkey are primary sources. There were over 200 FEC-filed candidates in the 2012 presidential field - not necessarily actively campaigning - I might add. We do not use original research to write Wikipedia, and we absolutely do not want to defame or post incorrect information. I personally have been active on the WikiProject ProWrestling and I know for a fact that only the WWE, TNA, and ROH performers are listed; others, especially on the indy scene, have written their own articles at times (despite the fact that they aren't even on TV and probably didn't even win a championship) and there simply is no strong reason for it. Yes, there are indy wrestlers that have their own pages, but the wrestling career of many wrestlers is usually promotional or fancruft, which are also against wikipedia. Also, we are writing an encyclopedia that is supposed to be historical, not news. In this case, this page is not even news. I thought I dealt with this before when I took down a number of pathetic attempts to put him on the list of Republican candidates. If this page is so notable that people are supposed to be reading it in 10 years (see the 10 year test), why have there been so many nominations for deletion? It is just ridiculous. I mean, if I could, I would take this page down immediately and close the discussion.--Screwball23 talk 04:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, true about the primary sources, but that should be fixed by editing. take out anything that's supported by a primary source and there are still enough sources to easily pass the gng. there could be 2 million fec filed candidates, but this one has a bunch of newspaper articles about him, so he's notable. how many nominations there've been for deletion can't be relevant. anyone can nominate an article any time. if having 4 afds that ended in keep meant delete, george bush would be gone too. the 10 year test is an essay, not policy.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of AfDs is actually very telling, yes, it is very telling that the community considers the subject notable and that there are occasionally singular editors who disagree. The community ceremonially tells those editors that they are incorrect, time and time again. Silver seren^C 05:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further question, were you involved in the talk page discussion or in one of the past Afds? Silver seren^C 06:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. The experience I'm referring to was about Jonathan Sharkey's inclusion on the list of GOP candidates. I fought a bitter edit war with some really hard-headed editors to get him off that page. Sharkey simply did not run a real candidacy, and honestly, just from the length of our debate, he probably gained more web traffic from wikipedia than he ever would receive in the real world. Simply put, the meat of that discussion was about what compromised a "campaign" and what compromised a "notable" campaign. We found that he was good at doing paperwork with the FEC, but did not run a true "campaign" in terms of TV/radio ads, meeting voters on the campaign trail, raising donations, etc. In the modern day, a lot of people can run a blog campaign for presidency, and that is what I suspect was the case there. In any case, we found he was not a notable candidate, which we knew beforehand, and accordingly minimized his presence on the page. If you check the page, he is still listed as a withdrawn presidential candidate.--Screwball23 talk 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is quite clear that there are a significant amount of sources discussing him (even if a lot of primary sources are used in the article, there are many more secondary sources available to add). He is notable for a number of different reasons, all described in the lede and all of which has received individually coverage. The nominator's reasoning is baffling. All of the past AfDs have closed as Keep, clearly showing community consensus on the subject. If the subject of the article has issues with it and feels that it is being non-neutrally written, then that is something that we need to fix by editing out the offending, non-neutral info, but deleting his article is not the proper way to go about this. Silver seren^C 05:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, like I've said before, the coverage does not reflect on him but rather his eccentric candidacy as part of an overall trend. The overall trend should have an article, but not necessarily Sharkey himself. He personally wants the article to be deleted. As a non-notable figure, we should grant him this wish.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: Were you involved in the talk page discussion or one of the past Afds? Silver seren^C 06:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see that you were. The nominator has been contacting a significant number of people and it's a little concerning. But as long as you were actually involved, it's okay. Silver seren^C 06:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Usually I support marginally-notable BLP deletions when the subject wishes it, but this person has simply received too much coverage for too many things to legitimately be considered "marginal". The perennial candidacies, wrestling the vampirism, the arrests, the controversies with underaged girls. There is a story to be found regarding his military career as well, but it seems that needs more sourcing before it can be addressed. WP:GNG is satisfied, above and beyond. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient notability established through independent sources. "He wants it gone" isn't a valid deletion rationale. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, if you're a public figure with verifiable facts in the public record, "I don't want a page" isn't good enough to have a page taken down. We're not Italy (yet). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per GaryColemanFan et al above. Enough reliable mainstream sources exist. He iro 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been nominated enough times for deletion, and has been voted to be kept, to see that it has been clearly established that this person is notable enough for a page. Just because one user has decided to change their mind (even if it is Sharkey himself) does not mean the whole of 5 previous consensuses should be turned on their heads.Thunderstone99 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable from all the sources. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has not gotten less notable since the last nomination. Marcus Qwertyus 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. Maybe semi-protect the page + talk page for the duration of the current election cycle? Stuartyeates (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t think semi-protection is needed. He dropped out of the race in late August and there has only been 3 IP edits in the last two a half weeks.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He is notable. There is significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources. GB fan 02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roxen (web server)[edit]

Roxen (web server) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

If I remove the excess puffery, there might not be enough left in this article to even hint at notability; 3rd party sources almost non-existent since creation. Article was PROD'd and restore (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll agree that the article is in a sorry state and evidently has been for quite a while. Some old sources do exist, such as this one from Linux Journal or this one from PC Mag. §everal⇒|Times 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reliable sources about the topic in detail:

Leszek, Pawel (March 18, 2002.) "Roxen WebServer 2.2." Linuxjournal.com. Accessed September 2011.

Clyman, John (January 15, 2002.) "Roxen WebServer 2.2." PC Magazine. Accessed September 2011.

Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - several apparently independent reviews found by googling roxen pike review --Northernhenge (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an encyclopedia like wikipedia should include all that is out there, this appears to be signifigant. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article should be rewritten, and i have assembled a list of articles to draw material from on the articles talk page. 46.4.240.197 (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been found giving coverage of this. Dream Focus 10:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Heavy snow in the forecast. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOS version history[edit]

IOS version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of changelogs, which is what these articles unashamedly are. Any changes of note (e.g. Siri for iOS 5-on-4S) can, and most likely are, covered in their parent articles. Also nominated:

Android version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

~~Windows Phone version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ Withdrawn. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - These articles (both this and Android) are beautiful examples of collaboration on the web. I have used these articles countless time, and are extremely useful when used together to compare the two systems, and their feature. They are also useful for people looking into which phone OS. I would hate to see them go. From personal experience I can say that finding and and collecting, and compiling this data is very difficult for one individual, a reason I believe this page has flourished. Please do consider the traffic to this page in your decision, but I must say that I am against it. Dbnaruto (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Why would you want to delete this article it has so much great information that tracks the history of the iOS. Please keep this article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveg65 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Article is extermly helpful and a lot of work has gone into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.23.242 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That's not even what these article articles are. They contain irreplaceable, detailed prose. Marcus Qwertyus 18:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a great resource for people. I use this website all the time. When someone asks why they should update I point them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.209.93 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A token amount of prose does not change the fundamental nature of these articles, which is to document changes in each release, contrary to WP:NOT. Indeed, Android (operating system) already talks about Ice Cream Sandwich in a more succint matter, and using reliable sources. However, I will withdraw Windows Phone in favour of completing the merge agreed to on the talk page. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the cited part of WP:NOT was removed by the article creator, KelleyCook (talk · contribs), claiming a lack of consensus for its specific inclusion. However, this article still inherently violates Wikipedia's policies against indiscriminate information and cataloguing. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely agree that these articles do contain detailed, irreplaceable prose, and must add that all of the information in those articles (at least in the Android version history article) is cited from reliable sources. List of Ubuntu releases was nominated for speedy deletion for this same reason, and it too was kept. I don't see any difference between that nomination and this. --Kenny Strawn ^(talk) 02:31, 10 October, 2011 (UTC)
I would love to see this "detailed, irreplacable prose", because I can't see it. User:Dr.pda's page size tool counts a total of 922 words of prose on iOS version history and 523 words in Android version history, including the lead section. The "4.x Ice Cream Sandwich" section in the Android article runs to 149 words of reliably sourced information, so it's not really detailed. The prose of both articles also mostly duplicates their parent articles, so it really isn't "irreplacable" by any long shot.

Your other arguments are also lacking. The Android article includes citations to droid-life.com and androidcommunity.com, which both appear to be glorified blogs that I doubt have been vetted by RS/N. And the comparison to the Ubuntu article is spurious too; never mind that the existence of one article has no bearing on the existence of the other, the Ubuntu article is structured in a way that prevents the collection of indiscriminate information, while these articles in their conception encourage violations of NOT (IINFO, DIRECTORY, CRYSTAL). And as far as I can tell, that article was nominated for being too long, not for violating IINFO. There's a subtle difference between those two. Reality distortion field much? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article may not be as "clan" and detalied as it could be, but its much better than cutting it all into induvidual articles. I say we keep it. 83.108.196.101 (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep but needs to be drastically revamped. As it is, this is a changelog, with a bit of added prose. It fails WP:NOT, but that itself is rarely a reason to delete. Instead, this can be revamped to be something lime "Timeline of changes to the iOS operating system", and culling down to the major additions (additions of notable programs yes, but this like "now displays music lyrics" or the like that I'm seeing in the tables, absolutely not). Distill down this information and make more prose than tables. I'm sure there are offsite pages that have this information well documented. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with 83.108.196.101. Oddbodz (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but the lengthy table of release notes should be removed and the rest re-written to focus on significant innovations, preferably ones that are significant to the industry, not just to Apple's commercial progress. (I agree with MASEM.) --Northernhenge (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page has had a lot of edits; really any of the many layouts work. I myself prefer something I can expand and collapse, just for usability, but it's a great separate page (and useful collection of information) for what has changed over the history of Apple's iOS. I know I visit the page for information every once in a while. Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 00:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Android article because:

The article is already a summary of "changes of note" between releases, as selected by the editors, not a comprehensive changelog detailing every change (there are usually hundreds or thousands of changes in each version). Since it is selective, it isn't indiscriminate. Some of the entries for more recent changes are a bit too detailed but could be edited down.

Usefulness: For commercial reasons the release dates of software and the introduction of features have become quite significant, and such milestones in the software's history can be notable and are worth documenting. Major, complex pieces of software like operating systems usually have thousands of changes between versions, and obviously listing every single change is inappropriate, but a condensed list selected by editors is worthwhile and provides a valuable reference by showing a condensed history that is (ideally) free from marketing gloss and hype.

This article's contents were split by consensus from the history section of the main Android article, so reversing that as suggested by the nominator would go against consensus. The version history section in the main article is a summary section, as suggested in WP:SPLIT, containing only recent changes. Older changes are still an important part of the history of the subject even if they aren't as topical. Dcxf (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article contains lots of relevant information that is not found elsewhere. It is much more than a change-log. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJammingYam (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I completely agree with Marcus Qwertyus on this one, this article is well-written and contains an abundance of relevant information regarding how Apple's iOS has changed over time. Rickington (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - iOS page contains relevant information for the user even if it is highly detailed in it's account, i would rather it kept than deleted, and if it was to be deleted it would be nice to merge it with another article of similar content. --mickyfitz13 ^Talk 23:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this proposal comes across as a cynical attention seeking motivation in almost every way conceivable; especially just as a new version of the OS is coming out right now (thus this page possibly getting millions of page views) in order to gain the proposer themselves attention it seems! This is most certainly NOT just a 'changelog' as the proposer is attempting to state. There is much more to the page that is written in prose, and the tables are simply very in-depth —rightly or wrongly, because of the mass interest in the product— listings of the features of each new OS version; which is exactly the purpose of the page due to its title. --Jimthing (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, are you guys looking at the same article I am? I can understand Masem's "keep", but seriously, there is only a token amount of prose in this article! I mean, seriously, I can count at least three people arguing that 150 words about three years of constant software development counts as "detailed". And it is literally just a changelog. It documents the changes between each version; that's the dictionary definition! Oh, and "it's useful" is not a reason to keep an article. If you want to know all the changes in iOS 5, this is the correct place, not Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changelog policy is being debated at the moment, and even the current wording is not a blanket ban on changelogs, so "it's a changelog" is not a rationale for deletion. WP:ITSUSEFUL says "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." Dcxf (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Yes, this is a very useful article. However, it does violate Wikipedia's policy. Therefore, I believe that the article needs a major revision (see "Windows Mobile" article). This is a valuable page that simply needs revision. (By the way Apple updates there website the minute they release something. Ex: Try to find information on the iPhone 3G or iOS 3.x.x. That is why this article is so valuable.) Stephens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerboy1672 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But likewise, Wikipedia is not the Internet Archive either. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the article needs to be rewritten and/or added to another article (Ex. iOS Devices. In a similar format as the "Windows Mobile" article.--Computerboy1672 (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I use this article very often to see what the latest releases are and the estimated release dates and features are. if you looked at the logs you would see i have been on this article 1000's of time. please keep. Toothycardus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.61.61 (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This article is a source of valuable information regarding a major operating system and its history throughout its life, and is useful for those who wish to know the release date without doing the cumbersome navigation that is required on the Apple site (which fails to inform visitors of release dates of software or hardware.) Rory ^{Come for talkies} 11:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Facepalm. —stay (sic)! 11:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: There's info in this article that's almost impossible to find elsewhere and even if you can it would take hours to track down. Please don't remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2157 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several of the above points that are saying "it's information that can't be found elsewhere" should realize that if that information doesn't exist elsehwere, it is not WP's policy to keep it, we keep information that can only be verified. And if it is more that it is (perhaps) the only page that has combined all the major changelogs that are otherwise split across multiple pages, you're arguing for usefulness, which is also not an appropriate reason to keep a page. I still believe this page should be kept, but it cannot be kept in the current form and instead focuses on the highlights. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "you're arguing for usefulness, which is also not an appropriate reason to keep a page." : again, WP:ITSUSEFUL says "There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful"." Dcxf (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm arguing, that the agglomeration of detailed changes in the major version releases of the iOS, when otherwise they are likely spread out across many pages at www.apple.com, may be useful to a selected audience but in this format is not appropriate for WP, which has a goal to be a tertiary source that summarizes sources. It's not reference information like, say, a periodic table which has universal usefulness. We can keep this page, but as argued it needs to be focused on the major features identified by sources for each release; not an iOS user but aware of these, I'm talking about highlighting elements like the App Store introduction, Facetime introduction, etc. etc. Bug fixes and small changes, unless notable by sources, are not appropriate to include in this type of article. It can be kept and fixed but can't be kept in this form. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot believe people want to delete this - I came here looking for this info which, while in theory each thing is available somewhere else, is not in one place anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.48.158 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't delete everything like they do on the German Wikipedia… --Salocin ^Talk 19:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - Deletion of this page would be insane. Pure and simple. 76.121.63.75 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep I think this page is too important to remove. --Fuzy2K (User talk:Fuzy2Ktalk) 00:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep There's nothing wrong with this page. Its very informational, one search and there's all your information. Maybe some tune ups will do the job. But surely, there are worse articles than this. --Madeincat (User talk:Madeincat) 9:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep Deletion of this page would be insane, plain and simple, and I think this page is too important to remove. It is infinitely useful for jailbreakers, unlockers, as well as normal users. Haseo9999 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-referenced information useful to a large group of people. Deleting these articles would in no way improve the encyclopedia and aid our readers; the spirit of the rule therefore easily trumps the letter of the rule. (I might add that the letter of the rule only applies to articles about a product which these are not; they're articles about a product's history.) These articles are beautiful examples of functioning collaboration; deleting them would also work against our larger goal of encouraging and retaining contributors. AxelBoldt (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep cut[edit]

Deep cut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dicdef, unsourced for over 2 years. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? I'm having a hard time finding traction for this as a term, except for some very recent hits. Even with some recording-related terms thrown in, most GNews hits are for people with injured limbs. I'm also dubious about the thesis given that (for instance) a lot of Moody Blues hit singles were taken from the last or next to last cuts on an album side. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the term on Youtube and found the definition here. Why delete it? Makes no sense! Someone delete the deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.183.92 (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many radio stations do use the term, or something similar. You'll get more relevant search results if you type in "deep album cut(s)". That said, none of the sources I'm finding really discuss the term in much detail, but I do think it would be worthwhile to document the term somewhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps a brief mention at playlist could work. Zagalejo^^^ 06:41, 29 September 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, 3 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to a new section on some other radio-related page. Chris (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possible transwiki to Wiktonary? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody apart from the nominator thinks this material should be deleted. WP:NAC—S Marshall T/C 09:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Clondalkin RFC[edit]

Clondalkin RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notability". As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies. As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:REDACT at WP:TPG states,

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff...or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.
Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

...

Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
...

An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.

Unscintillating (talk) 11:27, 3 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tallaght RFC[edit]

Tallaght RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notability". As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies. As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Delete Not sure what the speedy/procedural keeps are based on, but I am not sure this article meets the guidelines recently developed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs. After a search through google news I found a mention in the Irish Independent in 2011 [44], but it seems to count against its notability. AIRcorn (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No other evidence of notability found and even if it does meet the Rugby Wikiproject guidelines I feel it fails WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the edit to the nomination, WP:REDACT at WP:TPG states,

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff...or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.
Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

...

Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
...

An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.

Unscintillating (talk) 11:37, 3 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very minor, amateur team that does not reach the notability threshold - coverage is routine in nature (i.e. results, mentions in local paper).
I'm very disappointed that much of the AFD thus far has circled around criticizing the nominator. Instead of misquoting guidelines in order to disparage an individual who has been editing since 2006, a thorough reading of Wikipedia's Fourth Pillar would be in order. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while mass nominations of AFDs are highly frowned upon, it's not a reason to close it as speedy keep unless it's clearly disruptive, which it doesn't seem to be the case here. The content right now qualifies as a db-club, and I couldn't find sources that indicate notability for that "amateur" club. Keep votes with no reasoning other than thinking that the nominator is being disruptive (unless it's really the case) even if the article don't meet any of our guidelines should be ignored by the AFD closer and frowned upon as well. Secret ^account 04:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Disruption" is but one of the five "reasons" given in WP:Speedy keep as a reason to close an AfD early. Speedy keep !votes should be recognized as comments, just like "keep votes with no reasoning". There may be continuing confusion in that the nomination has been re-written—here is the original nomination. The original nomination was "WP:NN", five characters meaning the same thing as WP:N, with no additional reasoning. This is a case of WP:Speedy keep reason #1, which states, "...the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion..." The proper thing to do would have been to close this AfD on October 2 or 3. Since the AfD was not closed in a timely manner, the community's time continues to be absorbed. I can hope that going forward, editors will respond quickly in closing such AfDs. Unscintillating (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody apart from the nominator thinks this material should be deleted. WP:NAC—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Balbriggan RFC[edit]

Balbriggan RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notability". As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies. As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the edit to the nomination, WP:REDACT at WP:TPG states,

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff...or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.
Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

...

Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
...

An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.

Unscintillating (talk) 11:34, 3 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody apart from the nominator thinks this material should be deleted. WP:NAC—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Dublin City University RFC[edit]

Dublin City University RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notability". As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies. As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the edit to the nomination, WP:REDACT at WP:TPG states,

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff...or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.
Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

...

Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
...

An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.

Unscintillating (talk) 11:45, 3 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness R.F.C.[edit]

Guinness R.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to say DELETE WP:NN but I notice that WikiProject Ireland have assessed it at START class. Does this make a difference?Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter what the quality rating is, the importance would be more relevant. It is slightly arbitrary in any case. Anyone can change the rating and the criteria vary between people and projects. AIRcorn (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nominator thinks that the article is notable. As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nominator has not advanced a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies. As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It refers to a functional rugby club in Dublin, Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the edit to the nomination, WP:REDACT at WP:TPG states,

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff...or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.
Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

...

Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
...

An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.

Unscintillating (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. On the merits, I'm not sure that this Rugby team is notable - it is indeed a professional team operating in Ireland, but does it play at the "highest level" required for a sports team to be considered notable? I don't know. I do believe, however, that this debate isn't going to produce a usable consensus, and thus should be closed on a procedural basis. If questions about the nomination, and about the nominator, can be addressed, perhaps this can be re-nominated in short order with a proper initial rationale and no bias-inferring questions about automated AFD nominations. Hell, I might put in a Delete in that new debate. But not this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its not a professional team Gnevin (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could I suggest that WikiProject Rugby Union take a look at their notability criteria for clubs, as point 2 could be used to justify the inclusion of any affiliated club in a major Rugby-playing nation. If that's the idea, fine, but I think it might need tightening up. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was what was decided. It was the consensus of three people from one project so is hardly binding. The point of the guidelines is to aid these discussions not to be a substitute for general notability. It could do with more discussion, but no one else seemed interested. AIRcorn (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only found a few match reports. No significant coverage. AIRcorn (talk) 12:38, 8 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to the club's website, the club plays in Leinster League Division Three. We're talking a low-level, amateur, regional team. Doesn't appear to be any more than routine coverage of results in the media. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POCOS project[edit]

POCOS project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Project that has recently begun and will finish shortly. No independent sources about the project. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 21:30, 2 October 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) 22:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. None of the sources appear to be independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 7 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article contains substantial swatches of deliberately ambiguous bafflegab: The POCOS project delivers a series of three symposia at locations across the United Kingdom at which global thought-leaders in research into the Digital Preservation of Complex Objects share and thereby extend the body of knowledge on this topic. Each seminar addresses a specific domain: 1. / Visualisations and Simulations 2. / Digital Art 3. / Games and Virtual Worlds It would appear that they plan to hold several more meetings. Let's see if anything comes of it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiquito (restaurant)[edit]

Chiquito (restaurant) (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 restuarant chain, fails WP:CORP Jezhotwells (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A restauraunt chain with 70 locations should have some degree of press coverage to establish notability, I'd think. Can any Wikipedians in the UK dig up anything in offline sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seventy branches is pretty big for a British restaurant chain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is about how this article meets the criteria of WP:CORP. Can anyone find sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to make patronising edit summaries. Your nomination statement was pretty vague itself - claiming something is "non-notable" because it doesn't meet a guideline's criteria, without specifying how it doesn't meet those criteria, is not terribly helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP says: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I see no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If some can be provided then the restaurant chain is notable, if not it should be deleted or merged, if there is any useful content to an article on the parent chain, the Restaurant Group. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it "has over 70 restaurants". Common sense here, and if necessary, we can update the suggested guidelines. Dream Focus 10:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article analysing the entry of new US chains into the UK note that Chiquito is a national chain (and notably so). The Belfast Telegraph indicates it is the UK's best known Mexican chain. At the very least, it could be merged with Restaurant Group as it is one the holdings as indicated by [45], and [46]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's look at these:
citation #1,[47] an article about the launch of three unrelated US chains in the UK, contains one sentence that mentions Chiquito: "While there are some national sit-down restaurant chains, notably Chiquito, as well as smaller operators such as Benito's Hat and Chilango, the UK's Mexican food market remains undeveloped."

citation #2,[48] announces a restaurant opening. WP:CORP specifically states that "routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops," are not significant coverage.

citation #3,[49] says that Restaurant Group is the owner of "Chiquito Mexican-style grills". The article is about the overall sales of the group as a whole in 2007.

citation #4,[50] is about Restaurant Group's sales in 2008. No mention of Chiquito.

So there is no significant coverage at all in these sources - thus the article fails to establish notability as per WP:CORP. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I'm concerned, having 70 restaurants makes a place notable. That the Independent refers to them as notable and uses them as a benchmark of sorts is also helpful. Now, is there any reason to doubt the factual accuracy of the statements made (specifically, "70"?) If not, then keep, and move on. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no reliable sources have been provided so far to satisfy WP:CORP. In fact, no RS have been provided to satisfy this assertion of 70 outlets in the UK. The fact that the The Independent states "and notably so" does nothing to satisfy WP:CORP. Can you provide something? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no, I haven't given that much thought. Treating some guideline as a fetish does not strike me as fruitful. We have a restaurant chain in the UK, which is big but not a huge country, and the chain has 70 restaurant. That's enough for me and for some of the other contributors here, it seems. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of WP:CORP it says "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Alright? Its not an absolute law. Read WP:BURO Dream Focus 00:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why should the guideline be ignored here. Please provide compelling reasons. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the common sense reason isn't obvious to you, I'm probably not going to be able to convince you. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute laws. A corporation is notable if it has 70 restaurants, just as a book is notable if it sells a million copies. Some whine about those just being "big numbers", but common sense usually prevails. Dream Focus 00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DF, what is this world coming to, that I would find myself in agreement with you? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Indeed. I am familiar with:
While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopaedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.

I consider that no good reason has been advanced for ignoring existing guidelines.

So why should the guidelines be ignored here? Please provide compelling reasons. If you wish to advance changes to the guidelines, please raise a WP:RfC on the appropriate talk pages, This Afd discussion is based on existing guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the guidelines have to be ignored here then the reason is that described in WP:IAR. Please don't keep asking for explanations of common sense, because that is something that you either have or don't have, not a legalistic concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The keep voters here are not basing their arguments on established consensus. Let's face it, the article fails the WP:GNG plain and simple. It could have 500 restaurants but that doesn't make it pass the GNG. There are reasons we have this guideline. You can't write an article based on the fact that the restaurant opened a new location in Belfast’s Victoria Square even if it does seat 230. The article presents a useful redirect title to Restaurant Group, which can definitely mention that it owns the chain. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I am changing my vote to weak keep based on the Highbeam articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a couple of editors here whose arguments seem to form a consensus. If Dream Focus and I agree on something, it's something. DF, we should do one of those intersection things, so we can see how rare that is. Odie, you could of course argue that DF and I are idiots, or ignorant of policy etc etc. Or you could accept that we disagree, and that maybe we think that there are more ways to skin a cat. BTW, if all else fails, I can throw an acronym at you: IAR. Plain and simple. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are ignorant of policy or that you are idiots. I do think that you are ignoring established policies and guidelines, which is of course acceptable in some or many situations. But I ask you, what would the contents of an article for which we can not find a single reliable source contain? We could write about how the parent company's stock is doing, but we are unable to write anything verifiable about the actual subject. It is for this reason that I recommend it be made into a redirect instead of keeping. If you are still for keeping, I ask you, what will the verifiable contents of the article contain? Please reconsider. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough verifiable information available to write a stub, which as any editor should know is perfectly sufficient to retain an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 8 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whpq, or as a second choice merge and redirect to Restaurant Group, its parent company. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable chain. Highbeam.com has more articles, google news coverage of british papers is not as thorough as US coverage.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On a UK-only Google search there are shitloads of hits. Admittedly, many of them are user-submitted reviews to various news websites but I'm currently (albeit slowly) putting a few decent sources into the article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - We've now got firm establishment that there are 68 outlets from the parent company's Annual Report. The media refs include NE England, NW England, SW England and Northern Ireland which justifies a statement that coverage has been national rather than regional. I will keep looking for more refs but I believe notability is demonstrated. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we now have three restaurant reviews, and an announcement of an opening - of which WP:CORP says: "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops; routine restaurant reviews". We also have promotional blurb from the Restaurant Group annual report 2010, a Reuters report which confirms that the Restaurant Group owns Chiquito, a list of cocktails from the company website. So we have no reliable sources however you paint it. This clearly fails the notability guidelines and should be redirected to the article on the parent company. Notability is not determined by Google hits, it is demonstrated by significant coverage, not restaurant reviews and any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you're absolutely determined to have this article deleted but you've overlooked the following: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" which has been done to compensate for lack of depth. All statements made in the article are now backed up including the one relating to number of outlets which you called into question earlier in the AFD.
If you believe that the Bristol Evening Post, York Press, Belfast Telegraph, Liverpool Daily Post, Lancashire Telegraph and Reuters are all unreliable sources then I suggest you raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. As for the corporate annual report and company website ref, primary sources are permitted providing there are secondary sources. Which, obviously, there are. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said these are unreliable sources. What I have shown is that the notability guideline for companies or organizations is perfectly clear on these points:

Depth of coverage

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.

Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,

the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,

inclusion in lists of similar organizations,

the season schedule or final score from sporting events,

routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,

brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,

simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,

routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),

routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,

routine restaurant reviews,

quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or

passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

Audience
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, 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.

WP:IAR has been quoted to over-ride these guidelines, but without any justification whatsoever. No sources have been provided to give any significant coverage of this restaurant chain. Just a few reviews written by hacks who have benefited from a free meal and a couple of passing mentions in reports about the parent group. This project is an encyclopaedia not a trade directory. We have no information about this chain, except its ownership, the number of outlets and its menu. This does not make it notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have another look at WP:IAR and quote us the section which says a "justification" must be provided. Then reflect on what IAR actually means and the irony of demanding a justification for a policy which says "ignore all rules"! Wikipedia is not about endlessly quoting rules and guidelines at each other, but about what would be best for the encyclopaedia and its users. Deleting an article on a relatively well-known restaurant chain just because you claim it doesn't meet a few guidelines is not best for the encyclopaedia and its users. The fact is that you have put your view and others have put theirs. It's up to the closer to make the decision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe ignoring all rules in this case will improve the encyclopedia. *EDIT* IAR doesn't mean Ignore All Logic. It means if reason can be found to ignore a rule then it should be ignored. I don't think IAR should ever be applied without a logical reason to do so. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to my previous answer! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chinese Animal Protection Network. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APpedia[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTABILITY - searching for "appedia" and "Animal" (to separate out links to an app-selling site) gets zero gnews hits, and the relevant ghits appear to be from the appedia participants themselves. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Chinese Animal Protection Network. Pburka (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in case you didn't know,it's a Chinese project, most readers of book do not use English as their first language. You should search its Chinese name ARC中文动保小百科 instead. You should also search it in the most popular (about 70% market share) search engine in china baidu.com, which will give you many independent links. BTW those web search does not include it's large circulation in the 'Chinese twitter' weibo.com， 165.228.206.224 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW it also has oter abbreviations in China 165.228.206.224 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you care to put forth some links to the sort of third-party sources that establish notability, please do. Twitter posts would generally not be considered as establishing notability, as they are not in-depth. Currently, the article is not sourced to third parties, and in its original form seemed more of a promo page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep A lot of third party sources can be found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23dx5assd (talk • contribs) 07:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep It does return many third-party results in Google, link: tinyurl.com/42ax5e4, check out 'Translate this page' links 60.241.220.89 (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not established by sheer quantity of ghits. Looking at the first page of results, it's a mix of the pages of the publishing organization, and things like blog posts and forum postings which do not convey notability. If you would like to identify specific links from sources that do convey notability - significant media sources, for example - please do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Chinese Animal Protection Network as has been suggested. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect for want of independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Emmet Tracy[edit]

John Emmet Tracy (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:ENT, filmography looks like all minor roles at best. No significant coverage to be found. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find significant coverage in independent sources. Pburka (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor who has never been a regular on any series.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actor is currently a series-lead on the show Divine: The Series, and was a series-lead on the Canadian sitcom Always A Bridesmaid. Additionally, he played guest-star and principal roles in many major network shows (Filmography listed here is not yet complete, but a longer list may be found here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1356757/). He has performed in scenes with many celebrities, including Angelina Jolie and Malcolm McDowell. A Google search of the actor's name offers 5,860 results. Additionally, he has had many major stage roles in significant venues. Combined, these credits seem to meet Wikipedia's "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" guideline for illustrating the notability of an entertainer.Village125 (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding comment added by Village125 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Village125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish general notability. As for inclusion as an actor, his most significant roles are in a web series and a sitcom that lasted 4 episodes. Neither the web series or the sitcom are notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 5 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addressing the IP's comment: supposed ghits search shows ~~over nine thousand~~ 33,000,000 results! ...until you realise it says "showing results for Vanessa Blue", who appears to be a porn model. (also see WP:GHITS). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Bluee[edit]

Vanessa Bluee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notabilty is in question for this article. –BuickCentury Driver 03:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, A google search produces a lot of links, so there must be a good source of notability out there. 69.124.122.119 (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I can find no coverage for this person in reliable sources; all mentions I could find are on her personal video-sharing/social media sites. Gongshow ^Talk 17:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is fine now. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silverado Park, Long Beach, California[edit]

Silverado Park, Long Beach, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is two sentences long and fails to present any true notability. No articles link to it either. NJZombie (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—with Eastmain's references, it's clear that it meets gng. i've added another one myself, and there are more. nominator could have found these sources, see WP:BEFORE.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Three reliable sources in article [51], [52], [53]. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well sourced, has just made the amount of required information for a stub, this could be expanded upon, so keep. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news archive shows over a hundred results. [54] Many are hidden behind paywalls, but they do discuss the park and activities there. Dream Focus 20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now improved.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have plenty of references. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene F. Lally[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Eugene F. Lally

Articles for deletion/Eugene F. Lally (2nd nomination)

Eugene F. Lally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Page previously deleted for a variety of reasons but predominantly not meeting notability criteria. The page was strangely recreated a while ago claiming to have added sources establishing notability, but nothing referenced challenges the main points of the previous deletion debate. In fact from the discussion I'm struggling to find anything significant that wasn't apparently in the deleted article. I believe this was a totally improper restoration. A side issue is that the current article appears to have significant recent COI issues from an IP editor, probably the same as those issues raised in the deletion discussion. Not unusual for a non-notable article. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 19:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was published in a number of notable scientific journals such as the American Rocket Society. Dream Focus 19:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Although the article has been extensively edited by Lally himself, it is based on real sources. I have copies of many of the articles (which he sent me); they are not all primary sources by him, but also include articles about him. If someone would like to help clean it up to be better sourced and more neutral, I can help with that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of sources that estiblish sufficient notability for inclusion on WP in accordance with WP:ACADEMIC. Agree that there has been no substantial improvement since the previous deleted version. User:DDG's comments from the previous AfD are compelling and have not been addressed ("The fact that I would not expect many references in Web of Science, but I find only 1, ( CONCEPTUAL SPACECRAFT DESIGNS FOR EXPLORATION OF JUPITER Author(s): LALLY EF Source: ASTRONAUTICA ACTA Volume: 11 Issue: 4 Pages: 219-& Published: 1965_ and it has never been cited by anyone. As far as I am concerned, that falsifies the claims in the article that he has a significant role, except perhaps as a technician"}. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I nominated this article for deletion the first time. Nothing presented demonstrates notability. Aldebaran66 (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article's claim to notability is on the basis of published work. But the independent citations to such work are negligible in number. No improvement since last version. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

True, they're not cited as references, but these are listed in the article: Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Nabil Belbachir (2009). Smart Cameras. Springer. p. vi. In 1961, at the annual convention of the American Rocket Society Eugene F.Lally introduced the idea of having an integrated imaging device and a processing unit. He proposed manned Mars missions with cameras employing mosaic arrays of photodetectors with their output being processed in the digital domain to provide on-board guidance and navigation.

"Designers See Space Guidance Systems Turning into Mosaics of Optical Cells". Electronics. McGraw-Hill. July 6, 1962. pp. 26–27. Goal is an optical guidance system that will not require an expensive and complex inertial platform and high-accuracy sensors, said Eugene F. Lally, of Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Mortimer Penberg, of Aerojet-General. ... Lally and Penberg described a method of fabricating mosaic guidance components that would reduce noise and the volume of detector channels. Arrays of photocells, each with its own solid-state, signal-amplifying, shaping and processing circuits, would feed an onboard computer as shown in the diagram.

"Landing Foreseen on Martian Moon". The Independent. Pasadena, California. May 24, 1963. A study of a manned mission to Mars that foresees a four-man crew of astronauts landing on a Martian moon before descending to explore the planet's surface was presented yesterday by Eugene F. Lally, senior research engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology. The presentation was made at a National Aeronautics and Space Administration seminar on Manned Planetary Mission Technology held at the Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio.

Maurice F. Reardon (July 26, 1989). "Keep Probing Space, ex-Quincy Resident Says". The Patriot Ledger. Quincy, Massachusetts. p. 10. Former Quincy resident Eugene F. Lally, an engineer, is an advocate for President Bush's space program.

Alfred Rosenblatt (August 16, 1962). "Mosaic Star Trackers Sought For Guidance of Spaceships". Electronic Design. Hayden Publishing. pp. 4–11. Even further in the future, however, is the mosaic guidance system proposed by Eugene F. Lally of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Mortimer Penberg of the Aerojet General Corporation. Their system calls for a mosaic of photosensitive cells that are only 1 mil square.

Robert C. Haavind (October 25, 1961). "Space Report: Soaring Ideas—Down-to-Earth Problems". Electronic Design. Hayden Publishing. pp. 8–9. One structure for space navigation was based on a mosaic optical system modeled after the structure of the eye. This approach, according to Eugene F. Lally of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, would eliminate the need for inertial systems or position information sent from the ground. The achievement of such a mosaic setup, in which a computer system would match incoming signals from the mosaic with stored data to make position determinations, awaits the development of suitable microminiature circuity, Mr. Lally said. ... analog methods eventually should give way to pure digital techniques, Mr. Lally predicted, so that smaller and smaller elements could be used.

"Weightlessness". Lab-oratory. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. September 1962. p. 12. 'Simulated gravity will solve most of these problems, but will also have disadvantages,' according to Lally, 'but fewer than the weightless state. These would include rotational illusions, dizziness and nausea caused by rapid head movements. Crew training would minimize these affects.' ... Lally suggests mounting the guidance module on the cable between the cabin and the propulsion unit. ... 'Our present understanding of spacecraft design to simulate gravity does not indicate that the required techniques would be so complex as to reduce the probability of mission success,' Lally said. 'However, actual spacecraft design will be dependent on biological problems defined by earth orbiting experimentation.'

Dave Swaim (August 1, 1965). "Mercury, Jupiter put on Places to Visit List". The Independent. Pasadena, California. Eugene F. Lally, of Pasadena, a former JPL man now employed as senior engineer for the Space General Corporation in El Monte, presented a Jupiter 'paper'. The space scientist outline a program of possible fly-by missions to Jupiter, that huge, fast spinning planet that is more than three times as far away as Mars.

"Cartwheeling Vehicle Asked for Mars Trip: Special Spacecraft Provides Artificial Gravity and Escape from Weightlessness". Los Angeles Times. September 3, 1962. p. 5. The spacecraft's cabin and propulsion module would be launched as one unit, but once in flight they would be separated by a long cable, Eugene Lally of JPL's System Design Section writes in the current issue of Astronautics magazine.

Comment: there is no need to copy content from the article here. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone appears to have put a great deal of work into this, and the fact that it still doesn't meet WP:GNG means that it probably never will. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It seems this is somebody who has done lots of not-quite-notable stuff that adds up to...well, I'm not quite sure. It seems we should have something on the guy, but there's no clear redirect target. The sky won't fall if the article is deleted, but with his broad area of experience, my finger hesitates on the button. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 8 October 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, v/r - T P 02:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor above had said "But the independent citations to such work are negligible in number. No improvement since last version." That's why I listed the sources that talk about Lally and his work (copied from the article); the editor seems to have missed these additions since the first version. How many newspaper articles about a guy and his work does it take to meet GNG? Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the number of articles. The problem is that most of the articles mention him, as a person, only in passing. I'm not doubting that he was involved in some cool work at NASA, the articles demonstrate that. I'm not doubting that he was media-friendly (he certainly seems to have spoken a lot to the media). What I'm doubting is that there is substantial coverage of him as a person, and after all this encyclopedia article is about him as a person. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear on what you mean by "only is passing"; some of the articles are specifically about him and about some papers or talks that he presented, to the point of referring to him and/or his ideas in their titles: "Designers See Space Guidance Systems Turning into Mosaics of Optical Cells", "Landing Foreseen on Martian Moon", "Keep Probing Space, ex-Quincy Resident Says", "Mosaic Star Trackers Sought For Guidance of Spaceships", "Weightlessness", "Cartwheeling Vehicle Asked for Mars Trip: Special Spacecraft Provides Artificial Gravity and Escape from Weightlessness". Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by only in passing is that titles such as Dave Swaim (August 1, 1965). "Mercury, Jupiter put on Places to Visit List". The Independent (Pasadena, California). "Eugene F. Lally, of Pasadena, a former JPL man ..." give the impression that the only reason Lally is mentioned is to give a local tie-in to a national story. I'm not saying there's not necessarily an article here (in fact I can foresee an article called Optical Mosaics in space exploration or something) but that article is not on Eugene F. Lally, which is what this AfD is about. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably should be judged as photographer as much as scientists, and thee appear to be sufficient references to his work to show notability , I consider Dicklyon our most careful specialist in this area, and I respect his judgement. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could be rewriten, needs more citations, but legnthy enough, detailed, why delete? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources in the section of the article currently titled, "More sources, with notes/quotes to incorporate into the article." Topic appears to be notable per these sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I moved the extra sources with notes/quotes to the talk page but they do indeed indicate significant coverage in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a tricky one. Apparently there is only one "Isabella". To Bank or not to Bank? And both articles are one-sentence stubs at the moment, so there's nothing to merge. That said, Isabella, Belize has an infobox, map, and coordinates, and this doesn't. Ergo, this one is going bye-bye, and if it can be verified that "Isabella Bank" is the correct name of the village, the other article can be renamed to Isabella Bank, Belize. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Bank[edit]

Isabella Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable settlement in Belize FiachraByrne (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be confirmed, it should be kept as inherently notable. But may be a duplicate of Isabella, Belize? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. The fact that there is insufficient information to distinguish it from other places makes it unlikely to be built into anything useful. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. Sorry, but merge is out because we don't know whether or not this is the same place. We also don't even know if it exists as at all as a designated place. There are a couple of blog-type entries but no reliable sources. It may be a village in its own right or it may an informal description of an area. The problem with a redirect is that it would be confusing to readers since, looking here, it seems most likely that searches would be aimed at the US bank. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:33, 6 October 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, v/r - T P 02:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (but lean to keep). Not sure if these are exactly what is called for in references, but I have found a few that do indirectly point to the existence of this village. Firstly, the Belize Department of Education list a school under the address of a village called "Isabella Bank" . (Oddly, a search for a village of "Isabella" does not bring anything up. Secondly, a 2009 report from the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre states that it was conducted in the "village of Isabella Bank". Thirdly, the Mission Resource Network, lists a mission as existing in Isabella Bank. Fourthly, in this report the FOA selected the village of "Isabella Bank" (page 5) for its study on potential hazards to communities. Fifthly, the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency included a "Isabella Bank" in its list of communities effected by a 2008 flood. Sixthly, a google search shows a number of results by Channel5Belize and 7NewsBelize that mention "Isabella Bank". Ravendrop 02:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Bank is a small village in the Belize District in the country of Belize, It is located on the banks of the Belize River approximately two miles from the village of Bermudian Landing. The population is around 100 persons at this time. It can be reached by traveling the Northern Highway out of Belize City to the junction of the road that branches in to Burrell Boom (a large village). There is a paved road from Burrell Boom to Bermudian Landing, and from there a dirt/gravel road to Isabella Bank. The reference to Isabella, Belize sound be removed since it is NOT the complete name of this location.Yo14ptl (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you have a source for this? Or is it simply your own knowledge of the area? Ravendrop 01:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I lived there for 20 years and know there area intimately. I have a house a numerous tracts of land in the village. I can document with sources all the facts needed as I have time.Yo14ptl (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it seems clear to me that we have one settlement that is called either 'Isabella' or 'Isabella Bank'. I respect the local knowledge of Yo14ptl but the problem is that 'Isabella' seems to be the accepted name of the settlement. For example GNS and other sources Falling Rain and others. We certainly can't have two pages on the same place so we need to decide on which is the correct name. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - While barely a majority favors keeping over merger or deletion, the argument is stronger that it was virtually unique in that the character spoke, than favoring deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Ice‎‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Pink Ice

Pink Ice‎‎ (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. A quick search engine test only shows unreliable sources or trivial mentions, but no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it does not meet the general notability guideline. The article does not provide reliable secondary sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about the cartoon, so there is no evidence to presume the cartoon is notable as a stand-alone topic or that it meets any of the additional notability criteria for films, and, therefore, it does not merit a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pink Panther#The Pink Panther character and animated cartoons. Merge any decently sourcable content on this short so as to improve the target. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC) (changed to merge/redirect to a more suitable target, see below)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And do you feel redirecting it to, or merging sourcable content to, the one place where it has context somehow does not serve the project or its readers? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~I feel that 124 such redirects would be unhelpful and probably unmaintainable, yes. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
So who suggested 124 redirects? I suggested this ONE because creation of the article indicates that at least one editor is interested in the topic of one of the only two Pink Panther animations (out of the 124) ever where the Panther is actually given dialog. That circumstance stands out as unique. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Pink Panther (character)#DePatie-Freleng/United Artists cartoons per my own rebuttal to a wish to not redirect, my subsequent WP:AFTER, and my recent work done to the article,[55] AND where this film already has a sourced more-than-mention. This article asserts that the short is notable for its rare circumstance of the Panther actualy speaking... and THAT circumstance has verifiability in news sources,[56] and, as reflected in the article, comentary and analysis in multiple books over several years.[57][58] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as per MichaelQSchmidt. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage of the Pink Panther series is, I think we agree, a suitable topic for coverage. Now whilst I might not personally wish to write articles on each cartoon, I see no policy-based reason at all why I should stop another editor doing so. This isn't undue detail, it's a stand-alone article. This isn't wasting valuable wiki-space, we're WP:NOTPAPER. Additionally, the point that this is the one cartoon where the Panther character has dialogue is significant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agreed with Andy Dingley. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there probably should be a List of Pink Panther Show episodes (a la List of Young Justice episodes, List of Danny Phantom episodes, et-cetera), with all of these articles merged and redirected to it. But there currently isn't; until there is, this should be kept. Also agree that, since the Panther talks in this cartoon (something he never did in all other Pink Panther media until 1993) makes it significant indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ewing Werlein, Jr.[edit]

Ewing Werlein, Jr. (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 Federal judge who does not appear to rise to the levels of notability as outlined at WP:N and WP:BIO. There are sources about some court cases, but these appear to be routine reporting of routine court cases, and there isn't anything in particular about this judge which seems to make him notable. Jayron32 01:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding precedent, and the arduous work of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges to create articles on all Article III federal judges. Werlein was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to a lifetime appointment to a position that is constitutionally coequal to that of a member of the United States Congress; this lifetime appointment was confirmed by a majority vote of the United States Senate. Werlein subsequently served as an active federal judge for a decade and a half, a position bestowing immense decision-making authority, including the power to decide the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President. bd2412 T 18:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I think all Article III judges should be inherently notable. As BD2412 points out, it ain't easy to become a federal judge, and they have significant authority after becoming one, not to mention the very hard public work associated with service. I might also add that if we delete this article, we have a real problem with even federal appellate judges who may not have received significant secondary coverage. Should circuit judges also be deleted when that's true?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.BD2412 has added a significant number of cases that Werlein has been involved in, beefing up his notability independent of him "just being" a federal judge.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that should be besides the point. Article III judges are inherently notable, just as members of Congress are inherently notable. A person appointed to a Congressional seat who dies three days later without ever taking a vote merits an article for having been a member of Congress. If the same thing had happened to Judge Werlein, he would still be inherently notable based on the importance of his post, and steps required to be taken by the President and the Senate to place him in that position. That being said, however, the vast majority of federal judges serve for many years and preside over countless cases, including at least some involving notorious crimes or civil claims running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Ideally, we will eventually have such information for every judge in this encyclopedia. bd2412 T 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I've already agreed with that point in my Keep !vote. One idea would be for the law project to add another task to its list (I'm sure you have plenty to do) to propose notability guidelines in this area and avoid AfDs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines like these? ;-) bd2412 T 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Heh, the worst part is I've seen those before and I think even commented on one small part, and just forgot. I'd crawl back into my hole if I could only remember where it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, however, that we need to move that draft from proposal to policy. bd2412 T 23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. A U.S. federal judge of that stature is most certainly notable. --- Evans1982 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. Billyboy01 (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know why this is even a question, Article III judge. Perhaps WP:POLITICIAN should be adjusted to make this more clear? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the reference to judges in WP:POLITICIAN is to those state judges who are elected as the guideline seems to be concerned only with elected officials. It's true that Article III judges go through a political process - and getting more politicized all the time - before being confirmed, but I don't think that makes them politicians.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it says "politicians and judges" (emphasis added). I think they deal with all public officials together - having WP:POLITICIAN link to them is a matter of convenience. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bbb23 - to the extent that any policy purports to cover politicians and judges, this grouping is awkward. A far more detailed policy draft dealing exclusively with judges is up for discussion at the United States courts and judges WikiProject. bd2412 T 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep As above, Article III judges are inherently notable. Safiel (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the closing admin The talk page of this article was deleted when this page was previously prodded. The page was undeleted, however the talk page was not undeleted. Since this will obviously end as a keep, I request the talk page be undeleted. Safiel (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Castle‎‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Crystal Castle

Crystal Castle‎‎ (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. Notability requires verifiable evidence and there is no evidence that this fictional castle has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it does not meet the general notability guideline. As it is, without coverage in reliable secondary sources, there is no reception or significance in the real world, making the subject of the article a plot-only description of a fictional work, unsuitable for Wikipedia. A quick search engine test does not show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that provide information beyond the plot of the She-Ra: Princess of Power, so it does not deserve a stand-alone article. Even as a toy all that appears are tertiary source that do not provide notability. The article only provides one non-primary source where it is mentioned that a band was named as tribute to it, but does not provide analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional castle itself and a single source does not equal significant coverage. Jfgslo (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of any reliable, out-of-universe coverage. All information in the article is either from in-universe sources, and any information I can find on the web comes from unreliable fan sites. --Jayron32 01:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to She-Ra: Princess of Power. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Near East University. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NEU Innovation and Information Technologies Center[edit]

NEU Innovation and Information Technologies Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable for a separate article -- if necessary content can be added to the university's article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NEU Innovation and Information Technologies Center is also a high performance computing center such as "National Center for High-Performance Computing" and "ITU National Center for High Performance Computing". We didnt named in that way also we made agreement with HP-Procurve for Procurve Network Academy , our center will be the 2nd Procurve Network Academy in the world. So we have a lot to write, and sorry about silly mistakes :)--Aekoroglu (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge to either host insititution or one of the other parties it works with) fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:56, 7 October 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, though a few lines about the project can be added to the University article if necessary. Mattg82 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a rough consensus to keep this article, so I am closing this discussion. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Maier[edit]

Daniel Maier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recently speedily deleted then restored in an almost identical form. Lacks any indication of significant coverage in any of the included sources, none of which are inline citations so effectively also a BLP unsourced article. Fails notability at wp:creative. Appears to be a vanity article cited as the subject's Twitter biography, created, maintained and restored by a single contributor. Exok (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I created this article, and I'm not Daniel Maier, as you seem to be implying.
As I pointed out when I reposted the article, it meets the wp:creative notability criteria in that the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors and the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work (namely Harry Hill's TV Burp, one of the most-watched television programmes in the UK that is long running and has been awarded many significant prizes). It is also not "effectively" a BLP unsourced article: it has seven external sources including from major websites like BBC and The Guardian. How is that considered unsourced, can you please explain?
With regards to "lacks indication of significant coverage" when he's mentioned in the standfirst of a Guardian news story ahead of three well-known actors - an article that was retweeted dozens of times and shared on Facebook hundreds of times in a a newspaper that has three million visitors a month online ^[1] - I don't see how that can be considered insignificant coverage - can you please explain? Furthermore, the original Wikipedia entry was created well before the subject's Twitter profile, so to use that as proof that it's a vanity article is a nonsense.
I've not had to deal with article deletion before, so I'm sorry if I'm not following all the correct procedures here, but I think this is very harsh. This is a well sourced article that falls within Wikipedia guidelines and makes a valuable contribution to the Wikipedia site.
Bananamilkshakemaker (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Bananamilkshakemaker[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, high degree of WP:PROMOTION. - DonCalo (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not seeing much in the way of overt promotion, other than inclusion of a link for his agent, which could easily be removed via the normal editorial process. Maier's take on Francis Galton gets some play HERE, passing mention HERE. Not a lot of ammo in an AfD defense, but it seems there is some likelihood that this is a comedy writer for whom reliable sources may well exist. Under no circumstances should this be snowed or speedied away, let's have a week to see if a couple biographical sorts of pieces materialize. Note to article creator: you are going to need to find a couple independently published sources dealing in large measure with Dan Maier as their subject. As the article stands it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Dig hard. If you have any questions about what is going on here, feel free to contact me for an explanation, either by my Wikipedia talk page or directly at [email protected]. best, —Tim Davenport ////// Carrite (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can I vote in this? I've addressed concerns raised and no one else is voting, so I thought I might as well. Bananamilkshakemaker (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Bananamilkshakemaker[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:50, 7 October 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning towards keep - I removed the offending links from the page a few days ago (and promptly forgot about the AFD)... Well, the inline citations prove the subject is who he's stated to be. I think a "keep" is borderline-reasonable given the referencing.
Re: the nomination statement - the fact the citations were not inline at the time is not a reason for deletion (see WP:SOFIXIT and I've yet to see evidence this is a vanity article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mills[edit]

Adam Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Former Minor League Baseball player. Fails WP:BASE/N. Adam Penale (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 03:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never played a game in the majors, only an eighth-round draft choice. Blueboy 96 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass GNG or BASE/N. Article never should have been created. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the reasons already mentioned.- William 11:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Movies[edit]

For the Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Very little content; no more than album, band, or discography page. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:08, 25 September 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, TerriersFan (talk) 00:12, 2 October 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunately has not charted on the Hot 100 and as noted, info is already on other articles. The song only receives passing mentions is google news & book searches. Mattg82 (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention whore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Attention whore

Articles for deletion/Attention whore (2nd nomination)

Attention whore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:DICT CTJF83 00:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-redirect & protect: Since this is already on Wiktionary, create a soft redirect and protect it from editing. Mattg82 (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works too. CTJF83 17:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect (WP:SALT) - this article has been deleted ten times in the past, given various inappropriate redirects and yet here it is back again! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect and edit protect, per Mattg82. That would also address ŞůṜīΣĻ1981's concerns about re-creation or vandalism. Cnilep (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Boy with a Thorn in His Side. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Sedgley[edit]

Alec Sedgley (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 seem to be a notable person. Mattg82 (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to The Boy with a Thorn in His Side, as he was the star of the film... an improvable article... and this is the one place where he might reasonably be expected to be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you find wrong with a redirect to the one place where he merits a sourcable mention? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is up for deletion, which makes it a poor redirection choice, but it now looks like it's going to pass, so redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... but when I came across the two related articles it was easy to judge which one would be easiest to improve, so I did some work over there. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rugby union in Afghanistan. Merge will be surely the best option. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan Rugby Federation[edit]

Afghanistan Rugby Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"Afghanistan Rugby Federation ( ARF ) officially launched rugby in Afghanistan on May 20, 2011 with the aim and intention that Rugby will soon be developed into a sport game." or, in so many words: there is nothing. Not proper working website, virtually no hits, no competition, no clubs, just one rugby camp and a load oficial blahblah. Totally not notabel Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rugby union in Afghanistan. The federation is covered on that page, and until more and better sources are available the federation itself doesn't need its own article. Ravendrop 00:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ravendrop. There's nothing in any references to suggest that ARF is officially representative of Rugby Union in Afghanistan. As the nom indicates, the website of ARF is of poor quality (it consists mainly of Lorem ipsum, though one page does give a contact phone number of a UK mobile phone) with a second reference in the Daily Mirror of Sri Lanka mentioning a Sevens competition (with the team of seven comprising the entire national team). No mention at all on the IRB website of the Afghan Rugby Federation (though as a lover of the game I'd love to see Afghanistan represented internationally). Tonywalton ^Talk 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment National team played at least 3 (apparently R.Union, 15 men) matches in Pakistan (sports.xin.msn.com, using France-Presse, "Afghans scrum down as rugby takes tentative hold") and they are not a IRB member, though IRB seemns to acknowledge their existence and that they're hetting there (rugbyunionrules.com, "Afghan players dream of rugby glory"). Anyway, both keeping and merging sound fine. - Nabla (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy series[edit]

Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy series (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, this article has no sources to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 01:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have not found any sources to indicate notability for this set of episodes. Mattg82 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Greatest Hits (Bon Jovi album). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) 09:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Our House[edit]

This Is Our House (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 song, that fails WP:NSONG. Yes it was used in an NRL campaign, but that by itself does not make the song notable. I found no reliable, third-party references about this song, let alone enough to create a detailed article beyond stub level as NSONG suggests. Contested PROD, removed without comment by ip editor. Ravendrop 00:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greatest Hits (Bon Jovi album) per WP:NSONG deletion is inappropriate since according to that guideline most songs "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Since Bon Jovi are a prominent band redirection is the appropriate action at this time. Polyamorph (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JVC GZ-MG505[edit]

JVC GZ-MG505 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:47, 7 October 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, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As stated previously, it fails the GNG because of a lack of good sources. Chris (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BUT there does appear to be a lot of plagiarism in this article (try Google searching some whole sentences). Whilst undoubtedly notable, this article needs serious work. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solution selling[edit]

Solution selling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article re-created after prior speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising.
This article is about a non-notable neologism and its sole purpose appears to be to drive traffic to a spisales.com website, apparently belonging to an outfit called "Sales Performance International". The "references" are external links to books sold at spisales.com; and to books with titles like The New Solution Selling: The Revolutionary Sales Process That is Changing the Way People Sell. Can anything with a title like that really be a reliable source? It certainly doesn't give me that impression.
Finally, this is a trivial variant on sales and marketing, and as such a content fork being used to promote a particular business's products. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I must offer my personal experience that anyone who worked in a sales organisation in the 1990s (at least in the US or the UK) will have had this concept rammed down their throat on numerous training courses and "motivational" talks. I "know" that this is notable, but don't have the inclination to improve the pile of crap that this article has become. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is that it's hard to find sources that deal with this objectively. Another is the confusion between this and consultative selling. Uncle G (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 7 October 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, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic is covered in tertiary sources (books) (see Further reading section in article). Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added this reference to the article:

Sant, Tom (2006.) "The giants of sales: what Dale Carnegie, John Patterson, Elmer Wheeler, and Joe Girard Can Teach You About Real Sales Success." Amacom books. ISBN 0-8144-7291-5

Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It strikes me as questionable as to whether a self-help book on Salesmanship is really the kind of reliable source that would support an encyclopedia article. The book itself seems to adopt the position that this is essentially similar to another method, and the chief difference is in jargons and catchphrases. Given the perennial problem of promotional editing, and the limited informational value of all of these several methods and their self-coined trademarks and catchphrases, I don't see the need for separate articls on dozens of sales scripts written by different authors all seeking to promote their own as the best. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google book search shows ample results. [59] explains that its a buzzword now used by salespeople around the world, and then explains exactly how it works. Other books cover it as well. Dream Focus 19:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quickly becoming a semi-popular term, found scattered across the internet, this article appears to be well referenced, and in no way is an advertizement as it is not promoting Sales Performance International, but simply mentioning it. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Night Vampire Ball[edit]

Endless Night Vampire Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Essentially an advertisement for a very, very obscure annual party attended by vampire wannabes. All of the sources are either primary or of dubious credibility; this article mentions something about TripAdvisor ranking this as the #1 Halloween party, but conveniently leaves out the fact that nearly all content on TripAdvisor is user-generated (and so not only does it not represent the views of the site itself, but the "ranking" may well have been written by someone connected with this thing). I don't think the subject has enough notability for its own article; if there is any content here worth keeping, it could easily be merged into The Sanguinarium, Vampyre subculture or Father Sebastiaan. Difluoroethene (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 7 October 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, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable event, fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete' no evidence if notability. 2 small mentions in gnews . LibStar (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sp33dyphil © • © 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~^ Telegraph.co.uk tops 40m monthly users during riots~~

[1] Telegraph.co.uk tops 40m monthly users during riots

[1]