Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 27

< 26 September	28 September >

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. Snowed under. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bresketball[edit]

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

Contested prod. Violation of WP:MADEUP, Youtube as the only source, thereby merely attesting nothing but existence. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This is just foolishness. -- WikHead (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G1 - Even humoring this with an AfD is beyond ridiculous. Trusilver 01:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly not a G1. Patent nonsense doesn't include coherent text. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a neologism, or, if you want to bend over backwards to be generous, on the grounds that WP is not a dictionary.--amongst the small number of cruddy, juvenile Google hits, there is an Urban Dictionary entry, for what that's worth. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Urban Dictionary? Worth squat. Ravenswing 16:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exists and term is used, but nothing even close to a RS. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per G1. 11coolguy12 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. I don't even see a reference (currently).Curb Chain (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arg. A google search shows this exists. Not even vaguely notable, but exists and so not a hoax. Hobit (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is although it exists, I could make the sport testesball. The way it is written is worse than ridiculous and written in a way to make it sound it legitimate. I think that qualifies as a hoax.Curb Chain (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to delete this via WP:SNOW should feel free. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire and storm: Aside from the other failed criteria cited above, this butts heads with WP:BULLSHIT. Ravenswing 16:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax/Vandalism, Speedy deleted as G3 v/r - T P 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taco sniffer[edit]

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

Contested prod. Expletive with no assertion of actual usage attested from reliable third-party sources. Delete.

Also nominating:

Taco Sniffers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A10) by Lifebaka. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Fiction : Tassili Plateau Story By - Thomas Louden[edit]

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

Wikipedia is neither the place to put your homework nor a publisher of original thought. Sorry. →Σ τ c. 23:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10. Duplicates Tassili n'Ajjer. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign Aboomoslem F.C. players[edit]

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

Contested prod. Overly specific list which also has verification and recentism issues. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - LISTCRUFT, among numerous other issues highlighted by the nominator. Giant Snowman 22:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. – Pee Jay 13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure cruft. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have used references which means it's properly using sources. It's informative not overly specific. Also why should my entry be nominated for deletion when there's so many similar entries for other football teams? Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, for those who only think the region they're from is the world and other parts of the world are not as important, are completely and utterly wrong! In that case, the wikipedia should cease to exist if only one continent on earth matters and others don't!(User talk:rooyintan)
- I have never seen a "List of foreign players" for any other club. If you say they exist, then I believe you, but I also believe that they should be deleted too. – PeeJay 13:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you take a look at the following four and there are tons of them: List of foreign FC Seoul players,List of Fenerbahce S.K. foreign players,List of foreign players in PFC Cherno More Varna,List of foreign Real Betis players. Again I would like to emphasize that fair is fair, if my article violates wikipedia so do many other similar pages from other countries specially from Europe. If my entry gets deleted then delete the european ones as well. If european entries are kept, then so should mine as well. (User talk:rooyintan)
    - - Regardless of whether or not those articles are notable (they're almost certainly not), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep or delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those lists should almost certainly be deleted as well. For the record I have no bias against any particular region, I just happened to stumble across this particular list while editing. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates what Wikipedia is not, as this is a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization. --Simone (talk) 13:46, 2 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} 05:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nainital Bank[edit]

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

The bank fails WP:CORP. Other than a link confirming the bank is registered with the Reserve Bank of India, there is only one potentially reliable reference (although I can't find anything about the reliability of the website). I was unable to find any other references. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough that Bank is registered with Reserve Bank of India (RBI). This organization is responsible for Monitoring and Guideline/Rule maker for Banks. This is the supreme Institution in INDIA. so it is not right that there is not reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokulchandola (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This bank is covered regularly in the press in India over a sustained period of time. Some examples are: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasons given above. Established in 1954, it is a subsidiary of Bank of Baroda (BOB), third largest bank in India, with a net business of Rs 3,600 crore (2010). Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is central bank of Government of India so its site is reliable. See article for relevant new references added. --Ekabhishek^talk 05:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of those is substantial coverage, and some have only passing mentions of the bank. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. This is an institution with legs (established 1954). While not all of Whpq's offered sources are substantial, there is at least some genuinely independent coverage largely centered around the bank's struggle to meet new reserve requirements, and an attempted but failed merger with the parent Bank of Baroda designed to obviate any need to comply. I personally don't think that this establishes significant effects on history, culture, or the field, and that this kind of significance should be required for a stand alone article about a business, but it probably does meet WP:GNG for now. I doubt it will look that significant in five years or fifty years; and that ought to be what it takes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:46, 23 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) 22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last year it was worth US$802.8 million, and it had over a hundred locations. Can you seriously tell me that doesn't make it a notable bank? Dream Focus 03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per coverage in reliable sources beyond a mere mention: [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:57, 3 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} 02:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Computational Astrophysics[edit]

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

More puffery created by Les Golden and his army of sockpuppets. I found some evidence that there is a legitimate organization by this name in Japan, but nothing on the subject of this article and no news stories to use to demonstrate the notability of the Japanese version. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax article. Have not been able to find ANY mention of this alleged institution on Google in Oak Park, Illinois. It does not have a phone number in the local telephone directory, it is not listed with the Oak Park Chamber of Commerce, None of the local institutions of learning make ANY note of it in their websites. In the words of Adam Savage, I'm calling this one "busted". Trusilver 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On WP:GNG grounds--all of the hits in Google news and books refer to an organization in Japan, not this place. Could easily be a WP:HOAX. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to belief it is gross exaggeration rather than a deliberate hoax, see this discussion for further context. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - probable hoax; for example, while gaming writer Les Golden has been a physics teacher, no such center exists online, and it's likely this is an "in joke" on his ability to "count cards". Bearian (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've gotten the impression from my dealings with Golden and other articles related to him that he actually believes this stuff and it is not a hoax in his view. For example the (now deleted) Near Earth Asteroid Reconnaissance Project actually got a mention in Astronomy (magazine). The fact that this project never went anywhere, no respectable press entity ever mentioned it again, and he was pretty much the only person involved in it didn't seem to bother him. I would say that Golden is a shameless self-promoter with a grossly overinflated sense of the importance of himself and the organizations he has founded, but not an out-and-out hoaxer. This "Center" exists, but is probably just in his garage or a corner of his office. Not that, as the nominator, I don't strongly agree that this article should be deleted, I just don't believe it to be a deliberate hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the semantics of the word 'hoax' seems extraordinarily unimportant to me. I can create the National Institute for the Study of Michael J. Fox's Contributions to Popular Culture in the empty room in my basement I use to store half-empty paint cans tonight, and apparently it isn't a hoax as long as I feel that (in my head) the organization truly exists. In that case, the only difference between that and a hoax is apparently malicious intent, such as using my invented organization to get lend credibility to my own publications... which is exactly what it appears the author is doing. That sound like a hoax to me... or at least enough like to to label it as such. I feel it falls under WP:HOAX, but at the very least it falls under WP:MADEUP. Trusilver 20:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of launch vehicle plans[edit]

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

Challenged PROD. This is a new list, that (its slightly odd name aside) purports to include launch vehicles that were proposed but never made it off the drawing board, or into production. The thing is, there are a LOT of designs that fit this criterion. This seems to me to be a indiscriminate list that'll be a magnet for everything drawn up on the back of a cocktail napkin, and borderline listcruft. The same author has since created a category for this sort of thing, which seems to me to be a much more practical and reasonable method to arrange these projects and their Wikipedia pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it includes current plans like the Space Launch System as well. The list brings together references, entries without articles, and basic information in one place. Fotaun (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs some cleanup and some solid criteria for inclusion, but deletion seems a bit too far in this case. Tagged for rescue. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept needs a rename to clearly state what is actually covered by this article. To the average reader, launch vehicle plans is meaningless. Is this about the 787 launch vehicle which Boeing just sold to ANA? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of thing always gets ample coverage in reliable sources. Ample references are already in the article. Many of the things on the list even have their own articles. Dream Focus 11:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—an editor has renamed the article to List of space launch system designs. RJH (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of orbital launch systems, redundant. --G W… 21:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of all the planned ones, while that is a list of things that actually got made. Dream Focus 09:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Simone (talk) 13:51, 2 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} 02:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Licari[edit]

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

This article has no sources, I think it is an autobiography, also it does not indicate on how the subject is notable ChristianandJericho (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A collecton of pictures that not needed, Delete--Musamies (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, most of the sources are facebook... better reason to delete --ChristianandJericho (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am the creator of this artical and I think this artical needs to stay up on Wikipedia. It is just like articals about Nick Canon and Simon Cowell. Frank is the host of a new, upcoming television show called Recreating a Legend, Just like Nick is to America's Got Talent and Simon is to The X Factor. Frank also is an actor in many television shows, movies, and plays. So he is famous and not some autobiography of a random person. If this article stays on, I will delete the pictures that you think are not needed. Thank you. I really hope this will stay on :) Lostrocks123 (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

they are barely any sources that state why he is notable so, Delete--ChristianandJericho (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a lot more sourcesLostrocks123 (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vote still stands --ChristianandJericho (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources that confirm or even asserts his notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:30, 6 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm relisting this debate, as I can find no evidence that it was properly listed at WP:AFD. I make no recommendation to keep or delete, except to note that there is only one source in the article - and that source is not reliable. If the article is to be kept, I would think more reliable sources would be necessary. Note also that the Usual Caveats may apply here - it's possible that Mr. Licari is not notable at present, but may become notable later on. If that happens, an article may be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No RS's provided. The main Google hits seem to focus on birth and death notices of other people. Imdb page indicates a dozen or so small, undistinguished roles in a dozen or so small, undistinguished projects. Who knows, maybe he will become the next Simon Cowell. Please relist this article then, not now. WP is not a promotional tool. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never mind GNG, he fails WP:CREATIVE, too. There are no reasonable claims of notability, and no reliable sources. He's not ready for prime time; see also WP:UPANDCOMING, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER does not apply here, as it seems Mr. Licari has a name. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrew the AfD two days ago. Looks like a Keep regardless; renaming can be done WP:BOLDly or through talk-page discussion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of plants used as medicine[edit]

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

Before coming here, several users have tried to create a sourced article, and an IP proposed it for deletion at Category:Proposed deletion. I removed the tag, because deletion is likely to be controversial and notified the user at the IP address. This list, which could be a good article, has been edited into an ugly, messy mush of POV-pushing and spam. It includes unverifiable facts and there are few reliable citations. It's an extreme example of a bad list. It could potentially be decent, but this needs to be blown up and started again from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that the list should be deleted, while strongly agreeing that it's badly in need of reworking. I'd be willing to work on it, but I'm hesitant to do so if anything I do is going to disappear out from under me in a few days. As for the "Let's start from scratch" argument: The article as is has a decent set of references, which would be a good point of departure for a drastic rewrite. The problem with deleting an article is that nothing from the article is visible again. Further, it makes it tricky to rewrite it, because you have to reinstate the article to do so. May I suggest that the article be kept, but with a (very) strong suggestion that it be rewritten? Waitak (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the herbs don't have a single study at all; hell, the vast majority don't even have any indication they're actually medicinal plants, they're just on the list, with nary a condition given that they treat. Others have claims about human health based on in vitro or mouse studies. There's maybe... a half dozen herbs with decent sourcing - willow, opium poppy, foxglove, that sort of thing.

That said, if the article IS completely rewritten, it should not under any circumstances be deleted based on arguments before that. But as it stands, is there really anything worth saving here? I think not; List articles are a special case, since they can't simply be trimmed down to stubs.

Suppose you could try making it a very short list to start, if you're really desperate to save it. Maybe it'll seem less hopeless after. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)— 86.182.20.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All right, I've made a start on a rewrite. I'd be more than happy to keep going if the article is removed from consideration for deletion. Obviously, I don't want to waste more time than I've already spent if the article is going away. I think that there's a value in this article, beyond that of the other tradition-specific lists of plants, in that this article explicitly lists (1) which medical traditions the plants are used in and (2) what they're used for. That's worth having in one place. It's also useful to have entries on which to hang references regarding claims and counterclaims, while not engaging in the discussion about these claims.

Once we've got a more respectable number of well-cited entries, I'd like to reorganize them in whatever way seems suitable.

So should I keep going?

Waitak (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OI've taken the liberty of trimming everything uncited, or for which no medical claim was made. Not sure about a lot of what remains (single studies used to say a herb CAN treat a disease, really honest?), but at least we now know what's there and potentially usable. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)— 86.182.20.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think what happened here is that this article was created when other lists did not exist at the time. We now have lists detailing the herbs that different folk medicines use. This article is a unguided amalgamation of herbs detailing only a cursory number of health claims. Our existing themed lists are notable, but such a list is multivarious.Curb Chain (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that it's under (re-)construction. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see it has been rewritten, but it still has the problems the previous version had: It seems to be including drugs from many different medical systems, and I think it would be extremely long & excessive to create an article such as this. It would not be close to being complete. I see no advantage of this article.Curb Chain (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - This should properly serve as the article for Category:Medicinal plants. I see that category has few subs so it doesn't seem unreasonable that it should have a list. For sure, the list would be huge but if ordered alphabetically by common name, cited and with internal links to the applicable branch(es) of medicine then it could be a great reference point. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a disambiguation page be better?Curb Chain (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reflection, I think not. There aren't enough lists of plants by medicine system and some plants will be cross-category. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I am surprised pleasantly that it has been improved vastly. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup and deletion is neither necessary nor helpful when rewriting. And it hardly needs to said that the topic is notable: Google Books lists 69,000 books about medicinal plants. Warden (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for the items listed there, with links to Wikipedia articles about these plants also, and hordes of book coverage obviously, plus some plants also make it into the news. The nominator's claim that we should destroy everything, in the hopes something better will be made, is absolutely ridiculous. Dream Focus 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete It seems to be impossible to write an article on the topic that does not make unsubstantiated claims that herbs can be successfully used to treat things. It improved briefly, now it's right back to claiming herbs can treat named medical diseases because someone says they can somewhere, often ignoring parts of the source which say "do not work", or "evidence is weak". Quite simply, we just don't seem able to make an article on the subject that fulfils minimal standards. 86.176.218.96 (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)— 86.176.218.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We are not in the business of making medical claims that particular treatments will work. Please see our disclaimer which explains that we are an unreliable amateur encyclopedia, not a doctor. And even real doctors don't tend to give guarantees - they give estimates or probabilities. We should not therefore strive for some impossible level of perfection because perfect is the enemy of good. Warden (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the article doesn't make unsubstantiated claims that herbs can be used to treat things. Neither does it make unsubtantiated claims that herbs cannot be used to treat things. Personal opinions as to the effectiveness of plants as medicine have no place in the article or its AFD discussion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence matters Herbs that haver been shown to work can be said to work. Herbs that have NOT been shown to work, or which have been shown to NOT work should not be put in an article with implied claims they can treat a disease. This is not about personal opinion, this is about an article that I've caught out making claims that it's used to treat, by linking to pages saying that there's no evidence for it treating that condition. The article abuses sources, makes unsubstantiated claims, and that's nothing to do with my personal opinions on whether herbs can treat things (I think they probably can in a lot of cases, but we can't just act as if they can in every case.) Here's me correcting one such case - what I corrected to is what the site said; what existed before is pretty much a lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_plants_used_as_medicine&action=historysubmit&diff=453200128&oldid=453170095

86.177.230.221 (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Caught", huh? Direct quote from the article I cited. "Alfalfa is used for kidney conditions, bladder and prostate conditions, and to increase urine flow." The article also states that it is unable to rate the effectiveness of alfalfa because it doesn't have evidence either way. I resent the implication that I'm trying to pull one over on someone. I highly value and embrace the values that WP embodies for verified information. What we're trying to verify in this instance is that somebody, somewhere used this plant for this purpose. I more than welcome corrections if I've misread any of the articles, if they don't back up that claim. Waitak (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or take the claims for arnica. One study used isn't about arnica, another found it was no better than the control. These do not indicate it makes a good treeatment, nor do they even induicate any sort of traditional use worth discussing. 86.177.230.221 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article with anything other than self-righteous indignation then you'll observe that THE ARTICLE EXISTS TO LIST WHICH PLANTS ARE USED AS MEDICINE. It does NOT exist to say whether those medicines are effective or not. You've also been told this already by Warden but have chosen to ignore that and insert claims as to individual medicine's effectiveness into the article. Kindly do not continue in this vein. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of plants used in traditional medicine: less than a handful of these plants are used to prepare modern medical compounds. The article needs to avoid the appearance of endorsing use of these plants when medically reputable sources in general make no such endorsement. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no appearance of endorsing the use of the plants in medicine, except in the mind of a single anonymous crusader. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suriel, I disagree. The very first entry, on alfalfa, makes claims that the source, MedlinePlus, says aren't true, at least not as far as modern medicine is concerned. Until I just added it, there was no indication that only a very few of these plants produce drugs used in modern medicine at all. In reality, this is a list of traditional herbal medicines, which is perfectly OK; but the article should reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... no. As I've been going over each of these entries, I've been surprised at the fact that most of them are being evaluated in the context of modern medicine, in one way or another. That's what pharmocology and ethnobotany are all about, after all, and both are very active fields of research. This article doesn't focus on modern applications as much, so that fact isn't prominent in the entries, but it's not the case that these plants are only of interest in traditional medicine. Waitak (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which doesn't address what I said. It is hardly surprising that traditional herbals would be investigated, as that after all is how we have Digoxin. The problematic claim here is use in medicine. In general, they aren't used in modern medicine, by which I would understand "use" to mean that one's doctor could prescribe a remedy containing an extract from the plant in question (or a synthetic analogue thereof). Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That's a different point from what I'd understood, and one that I don't have sufficient knowledge to address with any degree of certainty. If I could address your comment on alfalfa, I'd be interested in knowing what claims you believe the entry makes that MedlinePlus says aren't true. The entry asserts only that alfalfa is used for certain things. The MedlinePlus article says that nearly verbatim, and is cited for that reason. Waitak (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List is now well sourced and the solution to the (frequent) problems with poor writing on this topic is not to delete everything related to medicinal plants, but instead to encourage and recognize good work. Kingdon (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of plants used in herbal medicine. Just using the term medicine seems to be cause of many problems. Medicine is equated with modern western chemical based system for which few plants are used pure, where as herbal medicine implies a different system. There is really space for two articles, one listing plants used in herbal medicine and another examining the scientific evidence for properties of different plants; try to mix the two doesn't really do either well. There is also scope of other lists by tradition, TCM etc. The topic it too broad, some sources have 5000+ plants used medicinally, for it all to fit in one list.--Salix (talk): 07:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I say it would be excessively large, and not useful. Note that the modern medicine is evidence based medicine.Curb Chain (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size is not a problem as it is our policy that there is no practical limit to the volume of our content. We have lists with hundreds of thousands of entries such as List of minor planets (which has about quarter of a million entries in total). All that we need do in such cases is subdivide the list per WP:SPLIT. Warden (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This should be a category, not a list. As it is now, it is merely a content and POV fork of the individual articles in the list. Material about medical uses is best left to the articles on the individual plants themselves. There are also major problems with what sort of medicine is intended: modern results-based medicine, or traditional and alternative "medicine". This includes what sourcing criteria are to be used: WP:MEDRS or just any old self-published promotional websites. The list as it stands is a massive spam and POV magnet, and ~~will quickly be~~ HAS ALREADY BEEN loaded with all sorts of spurious "medical" claims. Rewriting hasn't helped address these problems, and I doubt that renaming will, either. I propose converting the list into a category that just lists the plants without presenting any health, nutritional or medical claims. Interested readers can visit the pages listed for details. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the fear of attracting spam or POV is enough to delete an article, then a good fraction of Wikipedia would be gone. The article itself (post-rewrite) assiduously avoids questions of medical efficacy. I'm sure that you're right, that people will try to add some over time, probably even in good faith. Those contributions will inevitably be culled, just like what happens in any other article. That's what Wikipedia is good at. All of the problems you're raising are problems with what you fear the article might become, not with what the article is, and that has to be the basis of any decision regarding it. Waitak (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally removed material supported by a blatant spm-link and a pseudoscientific journal, which you reverted claiming that the sources met the requirements of WP:MEDRS. I'm sorry, but unreliable sourcing is a problem with the article NOW. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that I'm not the only editor that thinks the article is being misused to spread "alternative medicine" tripe. [[11]] Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP spa is clearly canvassing there by soliciting hostile opinion with comments such as "This article is just getting worse and worse ... Pretty much been taken over by Alt med trolls.". Such activity taints this discussion. Warden (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Dominus Vobisdu: I have to agree with you here, but I don't think categories should be applied either. The problem is that with medicine, we use sources to back up our information. What happens when there is no evidence to back up these claims? Are we supposed to use any source that claims that a specific plant will give us these effects when they are not evidence based? Are we supposed to list Oregano when Ellen DeGeneres states that it is useful for hemorrhoids, because evidence based medicine follows evidence, but since this article doesn't?Curb Chain (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregano article has a section on its medical uses, as will many such articles about plants. Are you advocating the deletion of any article which mentions medical matters? If not, what's special about this one, that we have to delete it rather than all those other articles too? Warden (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is patently misguided. Traditional Chinese medicine and to a lesser extent Ayurvedic medicine are examples that use plants systemicaticly as a medical system. This article is aiming to conflate evidence based medicine and the use of plants which is contradicting other articles on wikipedia. How is this a reason to keep this article.Curb Chain (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that converting to a category would be a problem, too, in that the list of plants would be endless and selecting them would be difficult to justify. I agree with you that any article, list or category on which health claims are made has to be sourced excusively with sources that meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLS explains that it is not our policy to delete lists in favour of categories. One of the advantages of lists, as compared with categories, is that they enable citations to be provided. This list is the best way of verifying the medical use of plants and there is no difficulty in finding sources which would satisfy WP:MEDRS. The article already cites such sources, for example, MEDLINE, and there are thousands more out there such as Medicinal plants in tropical West Africa — a respectable work published by the Cambridge University Press. Warden (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a small number (two or three?) of the participants in this discussion are unhappy with the article. The goal here is this: make a relatively comprehensive list of plants that have been used medicinally, noting what those usages have been, without making any claim that doing so is good, bad, effective or ineffective. Those questions are not within the scope of this article. If an entry here addresses these questions, then the text doing so should be removed (and that's exactly why an earlier edit was reverted). It's a list of plants USED as medicine, not a list of plants that are USEFUL as medicine. I wouldn't have any idea how to write the latter. The editors who'd like to delete the article seems to feel that merely noting use, in some medical tradition or another, is necessarily the same thing as claiming a medical endorsement, even in the face of repeatedly disclaiming any such endorsement. So let me ask: how would those of you who feel so negatively about what the article currently is like to see? How would you deal with making a list of plants used as medicine? We're trying really hard here not to make any claims at all, beyond noting the well-attested historical fact of usage. Apparently that's not (all of) what you're looking for, though. What, in your view, does a good article on this topic look like? Waitak (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know of only nonevidence based medicine that uses plants with unproven efficacy. This is adequately covered in their respective articles and apropos lists.Curb Chain (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been improved since it was originally nominated. It does appear to be a topic that is relevant and notable enough for encyclopedic coverage. More work needs doing to improve the article and I see requests for help from Wiki Pharm and WikiMed projects to help with that. The article has problems but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water by deleting the whole article. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A potential article rename is: List of plants used in naturopathy. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:LISTN, notability guidelines for stand-alone lists. This topic has been covered as a group by independent, reliable sources. Here are some sources I have added to a new "Further reading" section of the article.

"Plant medicine in practice: using the teachings of John Bastyr."
"Sacred plant medicine: explorations in the practice of indigenous herbalism."
"Making Plant Medicine."
"Medical herbalism: the science and practice of herbal medicine (Google eBook)."
"The Cherokee herbal: native plant medicine from the four directions."
"Plant Spirit Medicine: The Healing Power of Plants."

Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added to article: Bown, Deni (1995.) "Encyclopedia of herbs and their uses." Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 0789401843

Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Needs a lot of cleaning up. One possibility is to aim for more systematic coverage of the various herbs where activity can be established. Among the antiscorbutics, why lemon and not lime given its history in the British Navy, why not blackcurrant, chilli or potato which also contain Vitamin C. Then the febrifuges are reasonably well known, feverfew for example. Many plants contain phenols, no big deal, but no problem noting it if there is a source. Claims to areas that are much less well established shouldn't be made unless either there is a MEDRS source or there is evidence that it has been used to treat the condition. Claims of efficacity in cancer or diabetes should raise great big red flags. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "why not" is pretty simple: (1) the article in its current form is about a week old after being scrapped and completely rewritten (2) at least thus far, I'm the only editor who's contributed entries and (3) this is as far as I've gotten. Please feel free to help. Regarding efficacy, please see the abundant comments in this discussion and the article itself. The article makes no claims that any plant is an appropriate treatment for anything. The article is for noting which plants have been applied to which conditions, within a variety of current and historical medical traditions, as a matter of (attested) historical fact, not for evaluating the efficacy of plants used medicinally. Waitak (talk) 22:52, 3 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} 02:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge of Legend: An Incredible Story of Faith and Basketball[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. The creator is also most likely the book's publisher (User:PortCityPublishing) and so it was a promotional scheme to begin with. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The edits to the article since its obvious-advertising inception have been just paring out the ad copy...leaving nothing. Regarding it being promotional, also notice Special:Contributions/65.184.217.195, and that neither that IP nor User:PortCityPublishing have edited since around when the article was created - I gave both users a welcomespam template. I hadn't noticed this article but did see its material in Barton College instead. -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is this article which is about the book. It's mentioned in this article which is behind a pay wall, but the excerpt "Joyner Library provides great supplemental reading about North Carolina team favorites including a new book by Brandon Sneed titledThe Edge of Legend ..." indicates that the coverage is insubstantial. Fails to meet the inclusion guidelines in WP:GNG, and WP:NBOOK. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 05:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Marinkovic[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the ground that the player in question had played in Liga II. This insufficient as the league is not fully professional. It is absent from WP:FPL and its inclusion in List of professional sports leagues is unsourced Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability, all appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None appear to meet our notability guidelines as they only have received the most routine of coverage and none have played in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 14:20, 3 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 Withdrawn. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional golfers who have hit an albatross[edit]

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

Professional golfers are notable for being at the highest level of their sport, not for hitting an animal while playing. Pure trivia. TM 17:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—seriously, did you even read the article before nominating it? an albatross in this case is not a bird, but a kind of golf score: albatross. reading the article must be included in WP:BEFORE.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apparently I did not read it thoroughly enough. My bad. Withdrawn.--TM 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no assertion of actual notability, winning a student web contest doesn't equal notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The jazz report[edit]

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

Notability concerns per WP:WEB. RA (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Withdrawing nomination. You have still provided zero proof that these need to exist independently of the main article and I will seek merge by other means. Reywas92^Talk 15:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

One sentence is not an article. These articles are completely redundant to List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Although the past two years generated significant controversy, there is abolutely no need for articles about every single prize the Nobel committee has given. Reywas92^Talk 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just so I'm clear, exactly which policy does this violate? Lugnuts (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are entirely redundant and do not show notability beyond what is already in the numerous related articles already existing.
Keep. There's extensive coverage of every Nobel Prize award, and plenty of material available for expansion of each of these articles. For the same reasons that we can have an article about every episode of Doctor Who (and I am fine with that), we can and should pursue more detailed articles about each of these awards.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bad comparison and you know it. I've looked, and the only other significant information is the laureate speeches. It would be completely unnecessary to copy biographies, and articles should not just be quotes from the organization. Perhaps I should have gone for a merge rather than delete, but if we already have Shirin Ebadi#Nobel Peace Prize, WHY do we need 2003 Nobel Peace Prize? It would be better to expand that than to have a separate, redundant content fork. Reywas92^Talk 01:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate your point of view but I don't agree. In many years there's advance discussion about potential winners (especially for Peace and for Literature). The award ceremonies are always well covered, and the lectures (again, especially for Peace and for Literature) provoke discussion and commentary. This is the sort of material that would be more appropriately covered in articles about the individual prizes.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The laureate gives the lecture, makes sense to write about his/her speech and the response in his/her own article. The ceremony is dedicated to the recipient, makes sense to include what the committee did for him/her in his/her own article. "In X year, laureate Y won the prize ahead of other potential winners A, B, and C." Anyway, unless there's a realiable source that another person is nominated (losing nominees are kept secret), speculation is simply meaningless pundit speculation, especially since a person could win the next year, or the year after that. There is aboslutely nothing that wouldn't contribute well in the recipients' articles, if not already in them. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hopefully expand. These articles have a lot of potential and should be improved rather than deleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather, the already existing sections in the laureate articles and the relevant list have already fulfilled most of this potential. I think I will withdraw this nomination and seek a merge. Reywas92^Talk 01:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP could get along without the articles, but each prize is certainly notable, and of lasting importance. BigJim707 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why the laureates have sections about their winning the prize. That's why we have a main list of all the recipients. With Wangari Maathai#Nobel Peace Prize, there should not be [[2004 Nobel Peace Prize. Reywas92^Talk 01:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each and every single Nobel Peace Prize is notable, as it is not only the source of worldwide media attention, but subject to eternal coverage in a variety of works. Length is not an issue at all at AFD, people are free to create stubs. Also, the article could just as easily be expanded to a similar length of for instance 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, which is a GA and currently at FAC. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not a reason that there need to be separate articles. The eternal coverage, which is almost always about the person and works, not the prize itself, can be included in the main articles. 2010 Nobel Peace Prize is a subarticle of Liu Xiaobo#Nobel Peace Prize, which split when it got too long. The material is not about the prize, but Liu's winning of the prize. Unlike the others, there is actually enough information to require a split. They can be resplit in the unlikely event it becomes necessary.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jynx Maze[edit]

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

non-notable pornographic actress for now. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOM, fails WP:PORNBIO--Cavarrone (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable for a porn actorCurb Chain (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no actual claim of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 3 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} 01:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger William Harris[edit]

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

Perhaps I'm having trouble with name variations, but I don't see reliable, secondary sources which provide coverage of this extraordinary pilot to evidence notability under WP:GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relatively junior officer. Worthy, certainly, but does not appear to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. His Distinguished Flying Cross does not on its own make him notable enough. Thirteen awards of the Air Medal sounds like a lot until you realise that there are pilots out there with 20- or 30-odd such awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, subject lacks "significant coverage" in WP:RS and is therefore likely non-notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, more or an image gallery then an encyclopaedia entry. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had written a detailed rationale, but then I realized Necrothesp already covered everything I would have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 3 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JoJo Ryder[edit]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. Original reason was:

Unreferenced WP:BLP fails WP:GNG. The only references I can find to his name, his nickname or his company are press releases, Wikipedia mirrors and Facebook. He's a master of self-promotion, but not notable.

A representative of the subject removed the PROD with the following comment:

Joseph Massuno is a real person, there are many ways to find out about this person; from his offices, entertainment attorney, p.r rep. I am a representative of Mr.Ryder and these false statements will be turned into a slander law suit.

Note that WP:TRUTH is not the same thing as WP:NOTABILITY. Pburka (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Technically, this is an unreferenced biography of a living person. Google News finds only two PR Newswire hits that verify few of the assertions in the article, and that would not establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a representative of JoJo Ryder and am working on updating and completing this biographical entry in accordance with Wikipedia's policies for Biographies WP:BLP. I have had an account with Wikipedia for many years, but have done very little in the way of either adding or editing and need some time to ensure my work is in compliance with all of the relevant policies. Mr. Ryder has worked on numerous projects, which appear on IMDb's database at JoJo Ryder and will be referenced in the entry as soon as practicable. Chastise me, if you will, for being a bit of a noob when it comes to creating useful Wikipedia content, but I believe this entry is valid and will meet the WP:GNG shortly. --Rickladd (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a representative of JoJo Ryder you have serious conflict of interest and I would strongly advise against editing. Wikipedia is not a booking agency. - DonCalo (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE. I found plenty of promotional material on him, but nothing that comes even close to establishing notability, and definitely no notable secondary sources. Trusilver 02:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. UBLP, no references added in a week at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 4 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 speedily deleted per CSD G11. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Popova[edit]

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

Article written by the subject herself that fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. This is just a resume with a poorly written biography. No indication of notability beyond a small list of exhibitions, no sources at all freshacconci talktalk 11:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 11:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WWGB (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total self promotion. Safiel (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tongal[edit]

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

This company does not appear to meet WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. Valiant attempt at sourcing, although some sources don't even mention the company, others give it a trivial mention. One source mentions it more than a couple times. Deleted twice previously. Prod removed by article creator (self-identified as Frank Chiera, who works for a PR firm; Tongal is one of its clients). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are there, particularly interviews at the Huffington Post and CNBC, also articles at PC Magazine and adweek. It appears that the company has generated sufficient buzz in national media. The jargon-laden article could use a rewrite into plain English. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 20 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, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Buzz" generated by the launch of a website does not automatically convert into lasting encyclopedic notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources giving significant coverage have been found by MelanieN. And WP:NTEMP states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." It doesn't have to prove it has any lasting effect. It gets coverage, so its fine. Dream Focus 09:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natural cleaning product[edit]

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

All cleaning products are "natural" according to this article, as what differentiates a "natural" and "unnatural" substance is unexplained. The idea of "Natural cleaning products" has not been adequately covered in reliable sources for Wikipedia to cover this topic. Simone (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Originally a mixed sludge of so-called "natural" products, pseudo "natural" home brews, organic products, green products and others, cleanup left nothing sourced and certainly no indication of notability. I am unable to find reliable sources on the topic, despite the "helpful" header added to the talk page by the editor who removed the prod without comment. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is intrinsically unclear and could never hope to be more than a trashcan for products advertised as 'natural'. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Chasowa[edit]

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

Article seems based off of a single news event. Delete under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Creator gives some rationale in discussion section, but because this is so recent (just days!), it is unlikely to be encyclopedic at this time. AstroCog (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went though the guidelines again.....and here is my argument...According to the guidelines -- News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events---> This should qualify. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedic---> this is not routing reporting due to the political connection, and b/c crimes like this a rare in that country.

In reference to Notability events-- events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. it is s significant turning point in that the lives of activists are being threatened in a democracy -- Malawi is in Africa, but I hope that nominators are not looking at this as 'just another routine political killing in Africa' b/c that would play on the stereotypes around political tolerance and violence in Africa. The reason this is significant is b/c in Malawi this type of politically motivated crime does not normally happen. People are not just being killed as normal practice. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). ---> it had wide spread coverage nationally and internationally. Whilst it may have been a short article in international papers, this was headline news in the country of origin. ie. just b/c it is not historically significant in your country it does not mean it is not historically significant in someone else's...but coverage is not the main argument, significance is. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

--> I need to stress again, it has lasting value in Malawi. This particular event is significant or enduring because the political climate of the country is changing. A democratically elected president is operating in an environment where he or his supporters are threatening and harassing people. Whilst most threats have lead to fire bomb, house burnings etc.., this is the first time that the police actively sough out a known activist, and it resulted in a mysterious death/suicide (the other death in July were due to protests). He is being seen as a martyr..I guess the significance is in the context of the situation in the country right now - this is not just a routine death that will pass. It is marking the start of an attack on people, after the president said -- he will actively seek out protestors and 'smoke them out' he or his supporters appear to be making good of their threat. The fact that he is a college student is even more significant because the university and the president recently had an academic stand off that resulted in the college being shut down. students are disgruntled and are usually the starters of revolutions in countries. - UNIMA has had a history of activism, and silencing of voices in a public manner will be enduring in light of the threat made by the president and his cabinet to all political activists after the protest. Its the first political death after the protest

I think maybe it would help when the people that advocate for deletion it can consider the current environment in the country when give reasons why it should be deleted. (There are articles on wiki, if your not too caught up on the environment there right now and why this would be significant and not just another water cooler story), but some background information explaining why it should be deleted in spite of the connected political climate etc.. events would help me understand the nomination better. thanks all --MisterMDubs (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--I would also add that being a chair of a student activist group in a college campus in a country in a country that is becoming increasingly tolerant is not a small feat in the event that he had not died. so I am adding a rescu tag as well to get other opinions.--MisterMDubs (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Weak, because we do not yet have the perspective of time to see what "enduring effects" might derive from the individual's life and his suicide or murder by government security forces. One ref in the article says the death resulted in hightened tensions at the university, and that the funeral was attended by thousands of supporters. Another ref says the death is being investigated by the human rights commission of the country. Another ref notes politicians and university figures attendance at the funeral, and the funeral being treated as a political or human rights event. It was covered worldwide: the Associated Press (cited in the article) as well as references not yet cited such as "The Nation," which researched its own story on site rather than reprinting wire service copy. Aftereffects of the murder or suicide included the student body at the university dissolving the Polytechnic Student Union on the ground that it was controlled by the national administration. Thus this is not just a sad story about a random student who committed suicide. It is eerily reminiscent of the outrage from the death of South African anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko, who also died of head injuries the police claimed were from a suicide attempt. Edison (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sympathetic this slain individual and his family, friends and community. However, it's not enough to just assert that his death has profoundly impacted the cultural and political climate of the community. This needs significant coverage in reliable sources, and I think that will only come about with time. Again, I think this article doesn't stand up to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This article is about a recent event that is very new, and not enough time has gone by to ascertain its broader importance. When that happens, and such broader cultural and political impact has been covered by reliable sources, then an article should be made. It's not good practice to create an article on the assumption that it will eventually become notable. AstroCog (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment - As to the reports from the sources saying that the funeral was attended by politicians and that the death is being investigated by the country's human rights commission, I think a section inclusion in the article for the country makes more sense than a separate article. Perhaps that would be a reasonable compromise here? AstroCog (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how many English references can be found, but this was surely a well covered event in their nation. The former vice president of the country and other notable people came to attend the funeral, so this is an event that will surely have lasting impact. Dream Focus 23:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ongoing political violence in Malawi and the State's response are notable (not simply newsworthy) events. This particular death is noteworthy because (not mentioned in the article) the police have produced two different alleged suicide notes which the victim's father identified as clearly fake, and the police have also claimed that the pathologist's report supports the verdict of suicide whereas the pathologist himself confirms that he has not even issued his report yet. The events surrounding this death clearly point to corruption and state-sponsored violence/murder aimed at suppressing political challenge to the President's authority. If this is not notable in and of itself, what kind of death would qualify? Surely this article deserves cleanup rather than deletion. Youngdegsy (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - The comments here have convinced me there is a chance that this article has potential to be cleaned up. I think it will take substantial effort. It could perhaps be renamed or moved to an article about political unrest in Malawi, rather than as a biography of an individual. I'll try to help if I can. AstroCog (talk) 12:41, 3 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. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward E. Kramer[edit]

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

The article is nominated for deletion following the outcome of a deletion review. The content of the article is viewable in the article's history. This nomination is neutral. The reasons for deletion, chiefly WP:BLPDELETE, are set out in the deletion review and will no doubt be set out by participants in this AfD. Mkativerata (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to repeat a point I raised during the DRV, but this time I want to use stronger terms and clearer language. I'm neutral over whether it's appropriate to allow this material in the encyclopaedia but the child abuse allegations must stay out of the article unless and until he's convicted. It's not appropriate that we have a trial by Wikipedia; if he's innocent then the allegations are extremely damaging and if he's guilty, I wouldn't want a child abuser to go free because he could prove that negative coverage prejudiced a jury. My position is that if retained, the article should be fully protected, and if deleted, it should be salted.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing how, if we limit ourselves to simply mentioning the fact he has charges pending since 2000, there is a problem. In particular the jury in question would already be aware of the charges, so there is no information they wouldn't have had at the trial. If innocent I also don't see how there is a problem. The charges are a large part of his life and anyone searching about him would find them quite rapidly. There are sources such as [12] which paint him in a very favorable light. We could (and probably should) link to those for sake of balance. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason for deletion at this time. He's notable as a founder of one of the largest gaming/geek conventions, probably as an author and for his work on other conventions. So BLP1E doesn't seem to apply even ignoring the issues of the (well-covered) charges against him. It's not clear what part of BLPDELETE would apply either. I disagree with S Marshall in that I think the charges should be mentioned, but I'd certainly remove all the (admittedly sourced) editorializing in that section. Just mention the charges and that they are pending since 2000 and be done with it. We need to walk the line between whitewashing the article of all charges and making him look guilty without a trial. A brief mention should manage that with our readers welcome to follow the links if they have questions. Again, we would be doing a (potentially serious) disservice to our readers to not mention the issue. Hobit (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (noting that I have met Kramer, and participated at Dragon*Con on multiple occasions). In terms of the article, there are plenty of sources affirming notability per WP:BIO. Yes, some of the information is negative, but per WP:BLP, as long as any negative statements are extremely well-sourced, and the information is provided in a balanced, conservative, and neutral way, it can be included. --El on ka 19:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Page deletion is normally a last resort," and there's no indication that whatever problems might exist in the article can't be resolved by ordinary editing. The deletion of the article talk page has made it harder to determine what problems there might have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mkativerata has been kind enough to restore the talk page (behind a redirect). Hobit (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but only if we do not allow ourselves to be used to whitewash his reputation. In his own region, the notability of this person for the charges is equal to or greater than that for his role in DragonCon, and that in turn is greater than his (limited) notability as a fringe writer/editor of SF. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (notoriously not a fan of DragonCon; neutral on Kramer)[reply]
Weak keep I think Kramer is notable: the latest version[13] of the article claims and supports this sufficiently for me. However his notability is not such that it would be absurd to delete the article if there were sufficient reason. I have read the request for the article to be deleted and associated discussion. However, this, cited in the article, makes me wonder whether, at least in 2004, Kramer was willing for the allegations to be publicised so that he could also publicise the mistreatment he alleges. I do not know. The latest allegations section is well-written. It uses WP’s voice to say what little can be said in this way and does not go on with a “he said”, “she said” ramble but draws our attention to relevant external commentary. Even so, I think this section should be entirely removed. It is too prejudicial. It is not what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If it remains the article may need full protection but the section cannot be left unchanged for there have been recent developments[14] and the wheels of justice might turn another degree or two. Without the allegations is Kramer notable? Yes, but marginally so. A redirect to Dragon Con could be appropriate but his biographical details would not sit happily there and certainly not the allegations. Perhaps Kramer will become decidedly wiki-notable in ways he would not wish. In that case it would be more dignified to extend an existing article than to drag one up from the abyss. Thincat (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Would Kramer have been notable without the allegations simply from his work with DragonCon and related things? Yes. Therefore's ot any different that say Kent Hovind or Ted Haggard except that the degree of the notability is less. But that is a matter of degree, not a matter of kind. So he's still notable. Note also that almost all the top Google hits for Kramer are about the allegations, so any sort of do-no-harm logic to BLP doesn't apply here. The allegations should therefore be mentioned in a careful neutral fashion, keeping Kramer's version of events clear and well presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:42, 1 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 no decision. As Ruud suggests, it would probably be best to deal with these all at once. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fgetws[edit]

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

A single function in C is probably not encyclopaedic; also there is very close paraphrasing / copy-paste from other sources (including those in external links) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~fgets~~ or maybe C file input/output and integrate anything worth keeping. I just recategorised this and a bunch of other brief man-page-like articles from Category:C programming language to C standard library that could probably also be merged and redirected. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 08:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge+Redirect to fgets. Closely related, avoids duplication. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Transwiki per Ruud. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Deletion precedent. It is probably not a good idea to nominate these articles individually. They should probably be ranswiki'ed/merged/redirected/deleted/... en masse. —Ruud 09:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion at Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 10:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Totally agree. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's useful. --82.27.132.19 (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL --Cybercobra (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many C function articles on wiki. So what's the harm in keeping it? If the writing is not found to be worth of, discussions can be done to improve it Pranav Manghat (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This particular article adds nothing to what would be found in a programming manual. Why is the function notable? Is it controversial? Does it have an interesting history? Is it implicated in a scandal? These things do happen in programming language development but no evidence of anything significant here.--Northernhenge (talk) 19:10, 4 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. Snow closed -- DQ (t) (e) 03:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College dating[edit]

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

Original research. Certain propositions may or may not be supported by the references, but the overall article is on a topic that isn't covered as such by sources. No need for content fork. ^Bongo_matic 06:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. The article does not even stick to its ostensible topic very well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No recommendation, in light of the identification of potential sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable (over 2k Google Books hits), many (over 1k) mentions in academic journals (for example, a source listed on talk: [15]). The article is currently poorly referenced, but while this is a reason to tag it with OR/various citation needed templates and such, it is hardly a reason to AfD it - particularly when a simple look at the talk page (which I see no indication the nominator have done), would suggest that this article is in the process of being developed (as part of an educational assignment). In such a situation, where it is clear that there are editors who want to improve this article in the the near future, if you want to help, going to the talk page and explaining the problems is known to be much more helpful, instead of the quite less friendly "AFD the n00b's article" threat approach. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus. Notability looks pretty clear-cut to me.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus. All articles need to start somewhere, and notability is there. --Epistemophiliac (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well said Piotrus; its definitely notable, no question of notability. And besides, its not like this article is at a dead end, and will stay on like this forever. It is part of an assignment, and good chances are that it will be improved. Lynch 7 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus and WP:COMMON SENSE. This is the subject of thousands of books and it is a bit unfair to AFD an article that is actively under construction.Smallman12q (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Pitorus I would remind the nom not to WP:BITE newbies. Ronk01 talk
Note This deletion discussion was linked on the wikipedia-ambassadors list at Google Groups, associated with the Global Education Program. Dcoetzee 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is both a significant one and one with many good professional research sources available. It may become a magnet for college students with their own uninformed opinions about dating, but the same is true with many articles. Worth noting that the title here suffers from Americentrism: the article focuses on dating in a university setting, but it is only in the US that universities are referred to as "colleges" (nothing that a move can't fix). Dcoetzee 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the content is not good then it is an opportunity to improve it. The topic itself sounds to be quite suitable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The arguments above, if they can be called such, provide no citations at all. Beyond simply being an WP:ATA, the reference to GHITS is particularly spurious. There are millions of GHITS for "cold water", and yet the characteristics of water of varying temperatures can be adequately addressed at water with no need for a fork. Nobody has suggested that there is any benefit to the inclusion of more on the sub-topic of "college dating" than can be reasonably accommodated at the dating page. Outside of OR, there is no more than a sentence on the actual topic in the current article, so there's absolutely no justification for anything other than a redirect (if that) pending someone wishing to provide encyclopedic coverage of this topic. ^Bongo_matic 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Several hours ago, another editor has added a list of sources that should prove the notability of this subject beyond doubt. Before you make another comment, please check if the article has not improved and rendered your point moot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ghits mentioned above were academic papers, which are more likely to be reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, particularly when it is easy to notice that the phrase in question ("college dating") is important enough to appear, numerous times, in the titles of books and articles, not only in their text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Casillas[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have interest beyond the very most local. ^Bongo_matic 05:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Wall Street Journal local now? Or a biography on a person who holds 3 national board of advisor positions within one industry local or featured on the The travel Channel or a Industry expert/consultant to Spike TV? Although I do respect Wiki Admins who must be vigilant when policing the community, this article DOES NOT VIOLATE Wiki guideline NOR DOES THIS article fit the criteria for deletion.Wiki BioInfo (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the WSJ is limited to a quotation from the individual:

"Nobody is trying to beat us up anymore," says Robert Casillas, a strip-club consultant based in Las Vegas who advises nude-dancing facilities around the country. He says it's become easier for his clients to get permits for expansion and liquor sales in recent months.

This does not constitute "coverage of" an individual, let alone significant coverage. ^Bongo_matic 06:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic a 'person of public interest or industry' that has a career and projects cited in multiple newspapers Providence Journal and Tucson Citizen and co authored an article for the Wall Street Journal although his quote you cited above was short, the person contributed to the article and not to mention the numerous educational articles in numerous magazines. Your intentions to delete this article sound malicious. CAN ANY OTHER WIKI CONTRIBUTORS NOT SEE THIS ARTICLE AS VALID ACCORDING TO WIKI CRITERIA? Bongomatic for you to request this article/bio to be deleted, don't you think you are abusing the Wiki guidelines? I feel this flag for deletion is absolutely extreme. And if you understood Wiki's criteria you should clearly see a significance to this article/Bio for the nightlife industry. Nothing personal to you Bongomatic, I respect your intentions if they are sound. THIS ARTICLE/BIO has multiple VERIFIABLE REFERENCES for social significance and many credible newspapers/agencies and publications for Robert Casillas' Biography, although his contributions to the nightlife industry may not be important to you, there is a social significance to this Bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki BioInfo (talk • contribs) 06:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authoring articles in reliable publications doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines—being covered in them does. Indeed, articles written by a subject are, by definition, sources not "independent" of the subject. ^Bongo_matic 07:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic I am still newer to writing articles, and I was told by others to write a couple before I begin writing many as I will be writing many more nightlife industry bios and specifically on other significant nightlife groups. That being said, much of the criteria you just cited above only reinforces and justifies this article in-question. And as the English Wikipedia notability guidelines state, "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. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first." Furthermore, " We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So Bongomatic, does this article not have numerous of each and were YOU NOT FOLLOWING GUIDELINES BY RECOMMENDING THIS ARTICLE FOR DELETION WITHOUT CARE TO SUGGEST ARTICLE REVISIONS OR SUGGESTIONS? I appreciate your help and support for others that are trying to contribute and I HOPE OTHERS CAN SEE THIS AS WELL AND SUPPORT THIS ARTICLE AND REALIZE that it may not be important or interesting to them personally, but definitely in accordance to Wiki and the community. I will continue to contribute and have been vigilant to have content 'notable' and have substantial and reliable independent sources in accordance to Wiki guidelines. But how can anyone contribute any content following these clear and evident criteria, yet have you recommending an article for deletion with no attempt to critique or assist? Maybe you can discuss how you would change this article? I think it is evident that this BIo/article has very substantial notable and numerous 'reliable independent sources' to validate this bio/article. Wiki BioInfo (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Wiki BioInfo, first off, calm down. Shouting and posting walls of text is not going to help your case; you need to refer directly and succinctly to the notability guidelines in your arguments if you want them take seriously. As to the article's sources, I count two that could be useable under WP:RS. Both refs 6 and 7 are valid sources, although they are minor mentions only. For the rest: 1, 3, 10 and possibly 9 are affiliated with the subject (he wrote them); 2, 5 and 14 are trivial namechecks (and 5 is a blog, so not really acceptable as a source); 4, 8 and 11 don't appear to mention the subject at all (11 is in Spanish, but I can't see his name in the text) and 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 are dead links. Personally, I don't think he quite scrapes through on the two sources which do make the cut (they don't really show any degree of notability, being simple biog stubs), so I'm !voting Delete. Yunshui (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well said, Yunshui, and thanks for your research. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of independent sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete A real nobody ... can't find RELIABLE sources, and meets no wikipedia criteria for keeping (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 05:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geodestinies[edit]

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

Delete. Neologism from a non-notable author.Note that it has been transwikied to Wiktionary. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the book Geodestinies: The Inevitable Control of Earth Resources over Nations and Individuals has been reviewed in multiple outlets, I don't think this constitutes analysis of the neologism. I note, too, that the use of the plural in the article title suggests that the word is inextricably linked to the book. Therefore, delete the article on the neologism, but without prejudice toward a separate article on the book. Cnilep (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Healthy Home[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 05:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly. Misleading and evasive text; it starts off by claiming to be an environmental awareness company founded in Whitehouse, New Jersey. Its main focus is promoting environmental awareness for residential home owners as well as promoting a healthy lifestyle that would better lives and the planet. Only in the last sentence do we learn how they plan to make money off that: the exclusive distributor of the Examinair allergen and mold home test kit. An object lesson in why it's hard to assume good faith when you're dealing with spammers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly no significant coverage in secondary sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smartware[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication that either neologism is notable in this context. Neither the references provided nor Google Books/News/Scholar searches seem to support the word "smartware" as having medical applications as its primary meaning. Lots of people have coined the phrase "smartware" independently to mean many different things and this meaning is way down the list. "Medical device smartware" simply seems to be non-notable with one Google News hit and nothing in Books or Scholar. Both articles are pretty much the same. The whole thing seems to be a promotional essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. The author's comments on Talk:Smartware demonstrate a conflict of interests and a promotional intention. PROD removed by author with no comment and no significant improvement in the referencing. DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument in regards to Smartware, and how the phrase "smartware" has been coined by alot. However I feel that their is not a problem with medical device smartware. It is a fairly new term and that may be why you are not seeing Google Hits on it. I understand that both of these have the same content. I feel it is fair for you to delete the Smartware article if you'd like just because "Smartware" covers a more broad range then simply the medical device field. However medical device smartware does not. I feel the article should not be deleted. If there is anything else I can do to ensure this article remains on wikipedia please let me know. Regards, Joe Lopardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlopardo (talk • contribs) 14:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smartware as nonsense. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify Medical device smartware to remove sentences such as The Smartware Approach to Device Development Medical Device Smartware is focused on the entire development pathway of your medical device and making software a priority, no matter where you are in that pathway. which clearly doesn't belong in any encyclopedia. I'm willing to concede that Medical device smartware might be notable, but it's not clear to me how from the article how it differs from regular software and electronics as used in (for example) the automotive industry and why the article isn't called software and electronics in medical devices which seems a much clearer way of saying it. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the line you requested. To answer your question (how it differs from regular software and electronics as used in (for example) the automotive industry and why the article isn't called software and electronics in medical devices). The medical device industry has to deal with many regulations that other industries no nothing about. The FDA strictly monitors all of the everything that is used to construct a medical device as well as everything that is in the device itself. They all must reach certain guidelines. That is why not all software and electronics can simply be used in a medical device. It is the smartware inside the device which allows for the device to run to its fullest capability while also adhering to those strict guidelines enforced by organizations like the FDA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.74.7 (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend against stubifying Medical Device Smartware. We do not normally stubbify non-notable neologisms, which is what this clearly is. A single Google Books hit is not enough to validate this phrase as a subject for an article. A stub is something that should be expanded but how could we possibly expand a stub on a subject that has next to no coverage in reliable sources? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I did not request a line be removed. (b) Are you suggesting that there are no regulations or standards around automotive electronics? (There certainly are in my country, I have no idea about the USA, where you appear to be based). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:17, 26 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} 05:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism, coined several times to mean different things; and it will keep getting coined and meaning different things because at heart it's a sales slogan, not a meaningful category. The current content of the article is obviously selling something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G11. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vashikaran[edit]

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

Advertising. Mr. Anon 515 05:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Userfication may be requested if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roadmap (software)[edit]

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

This software appears to fail the notability criteria WP:GNG. The author has added external links a blog and to "ganthead.com," neither of which in my opinion qualify as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A quick Google search reveals nothing better. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of the article's Discussion page, where a conversation with admins on the subject of Notability has already taken place. Thank you. -Dave.j.clausen (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the discussion page prior to nominating this article for deletion; what happened there was a discussion on whether the article was insignificant enough to be speedily deleted. The result was that no, the article was better brought to AfD, which is where we are. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The sources offered are all primary or unreliable blogs. I do applaud all entrepreneurs who take it upon themselves to create products. But as a rule of thumb, what you need to satisfy notability requirements here is a couple decent articles about the product in print sources with some editorial control. This article does not have that. And with such a generic product name, if the Co-Founder & CTO, who's been heavily involved in creating the page, doesn't know of any coverage, I doubt both that it exists and / or that if it did, any of us could find it. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I'm the Co-Founder and CEO of Roadmap. I wanted to note that the article in Gantthead is significant because it is a highly focused publisher of content that maps directly to the service Roadmap provides (project portfolio management). The Gantthead editor has asked us to do a follow-on interview. Roadmap was also featured in ThisWeekInStartups. Is an article in a print source a requirement? Seems like a very high (and perhaps unusual) bar. Mobilebking (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific requirement that sources offered to establish notability must be print sources; I gave just my personal rule of thumb. The point is that you will need some reliable sources and that does mean something more than blogs. The usual guerrilla marketing way of getting that coverage is to pester the journalists who cover this segment that your product is worth a review. If you can convince them it's notable, that's how you'll convince us. Good luck. ~~Separately, you appear to be posting as both User:Mobilebking and User:Dave.j.clausen. That's a no-no. Please see WP:MULTIPLE.~~ Msnicki (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm Bill King, not Dave Clausen. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to demonstrate that I'm not Dave other than to have you send an email to bking at ppmroadmap dot com so I can reply. Back to gist of your response, I understand the point you're making but the definition of what's a reliable source is subjective. How is Gantthead, a respected publication for project managers and the people who management them, any different than a blurb on TechCrunch? Anyway, it is what it is and I'm not looking for flame war with The (wiki)Man. Thanks for taking the time to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilebking (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I misread CEO as CTO. (Maybe you guys could give yourselves titles that differ in more than one letter. :) Re: Gantthead vs. TechCrunch, I'm not sure we'd accept TechCrunch, either; they're pretty indiscriminate of what they report. I think it would take more than just a couple TechCrunch blog reports to establish notability, but that could be just me. Msnicki (talk) 05:43, 21 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} 04:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Yet more "project management" software without any claim to the sorts of significance that would make this product an encyclopedia subject. And if it's also a business startup, it's pretty axiomatic that it's not notable, even if there is a flurry of press coverage for the single event of the business being launched. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that the product has been commercially available since 1/1/2010 (so really not a startup anymore). As the article's author, I'm of course biased, but there are many facets which separate the product from run-of-the-mill; and it indeed even breaks some new ground. I would like to add these points in a very factual way to the article, along with adding a visual or two. Lastly, I submit that your vote be weighted less :) given that your self-proclaimed aim is to kill the human spirit. :) Dave.j.clausen (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely the outcome will be to keep your article. You can ask that it be userfied to your own user space, where you can continue to work on it. But what it really needs isn't a better explanation of the product's wonderfullness. Notability here on Wikipedia isn't about whether a topic seems notable; it's all and only about whether people with no connection to the topic thought it was notable and said so in reliable sources. You need those sources. Msnicki (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Street Band[edit]

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

Contested prod. Notability of this band is dubious. One source is a blog, another is a German site that tells people at the top to e-mail if they want their album included, and the third appears to be a true source, though the amount of content is not sufficient, in my opinion, to constitute WP:Notability/WP:Band. All self-published titles, no real claim to notability. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The band has released 8 albums through Itunes, and although they are self-released, have been viewed on MySpace many times and have a multi-country fan base. Although the other two sources might be weak, there are reviews of the band that show that they are actively making music. They seem only slightly notable, but I do not believe that self-publishing should constitute deletion. axb500 (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.17.194 (talk) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 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) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:18, 26 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} 04:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this group in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 15:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources, releases not on important label. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not verifiable — Preceding unsigned comment added by HereToHelpAlways (talk • contribs) 09:28, 2 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). 1½ votes for deletion other than the nominator = WP:NOQUORUM. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FilmCrave[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)

Refunded PROD. Orig reason was non-notable website, Significant coverage does not exist on this "online movie social network" to pass WP:GNG Mt king ^(edits) 09:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of notable sources are needed for this kind of website? Entries like Flickchart seem to have similar information and similar sources but was created much more recent. I don't want that site removed either. FilmCrave could be set up in similar fashion to FlickChart and other entries like it to ensure it is a legitimate entry, as it is. Please let me know as I will do what is needed to ensure stabilization.Heartiscontentious (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not rise above the level of a directory entry. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not persuasive. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It can be improved. Give me time to improve it with reliable sources, references from other wikis and the like. The entry has been up for several years. It can and should be saved.Heartiscontentious (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modified page to only include relevant information, sources for virtually every sentence, and info bar. Now, additional articles need to link to the FilmCrave wiki entry.Heartiscontentious (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I wanted to add in my name as requiredHeartiscontentious (talk) 04:12, 14 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) 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The JournalStar is independent coverage, but only local coverage, and it's the only such coverage in the article. The Mashable award seems borderline, since Mashable itself is notable, but the award is just one of 13 "Judge's Choice" awards given 1 year, which, as the article describes, is simply a vote taken by 30 blog partners of Mashable. Everything else listed as a ref is directory style (ICANN, Alexa (note how low the Alexa ranking is, too), etc.) or press releases. This is borderline, so if there were even one more decent source, it would be enough to keep. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional reliable sources. Should be good to Save. Heartiscontentious (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor removed one as non-RS and I just removed VentureBeat (it's a blog, so not RS). The three remaining all mention Filmcraze only briefly in a much longer list of "social networks for film buffs", or, even worse, "21 sites to go to when you're bored of Facebook". I'm not convinced that any of these rise to the requirement of "detailed discussion". However, I'm still really on the edge here...if other editors and/or the closing admin decide that collectively these multiple small mentions add up to enough to establish notability, I'm okay with that. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VentureBeat Is a news blog, just like TechCrunch, which is a reliable source. The writers from that site are former writers for WSJ, LA Times, and other legitimate sources. It seems that your choice to remove the blog was subjective. VentureBeat has over 600 different wiki entries linking to it. It puts on Demo, a leading technology launch conference. I don't understand how it is not a legitimate news source. TheNextWeb even discusses VentureBeat as a legitimate news organization (http://thenextweb.com/video/2011/01/27/how-to-go-from-lone-blogger-to-news-organization-venturebeat/). There are several other independent blogs that I could reference as sources, but it seems as though you are looking for only if a website has an in depth reference from an old news site, such as a dieing major newspaper or failing entertainment magazine. There are sources from one of the biggest technology blogs on the planet in mashable (several articles, mentions and awards), major mentions in news sites such as CNET, Switched, and an in depth article on VentureBeat. This isn't some hack website, it has major coverage is a legitimate movie site. ~~Save~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartiscontentious (talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion seems very subjective. No cited sources or reliable information given to prove non-RS. Definition of a reliable news source is subjective, needs citations to prove one way or another. Mashable did indeed hold an actual awards event in the Palace Hotel in San Fransisco, CA on Jan 10th, 2008. Award winners accepted their awards in person, including google, espn, facebook, digg, etc. Not sure why Mashable is not a reliable source? Please cite sources stating that they are not a reliable source. Same holds true for VentureBeat. VentureBeat is a well known site with many entries on wiki. Please site specific sources showing it is not reliable. Subjective reasoning for deletion should not be considered. FilmCrave page appears to have just as many citations as other listed film websites / film review websites. --WalkerStang (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC) — WalkerStang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not how WP:RS works; we don't have to cite a source to show another source is unreliable. I could be wrong on VentureBeat, but that discussion would be done by our guidelines, not by finding some source to prove it one way or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Citations drive this site. Mashable on wiki is classified as an American news website with primary focus on social media news. This wiki page is in good standing, not marked for deletion. Therefore the claim of Mashable being non-RS is an opinion, not fact. VentureBeat on wiki states many notable editors formally from the largest news agencies in the world. This information must also be fact, since the wiki page is in good standing and is not marked for deletion. Therefore the claim that VentureBeat being non-RS is an opinion, not fact. --WalkerStang (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not work that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 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} 04:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polysoude[edit]

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

This organization is promoting themselves

Creating deletion discussion for Polysoude

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable business; top Google News results are want ads, press releases, and incidental mentions that their equipment has been used. ...designs, manufactures and sells equipment and installations for orbital and mechanised welding as well as cladding. All the welding solutions for arc-welding are proposed.... Polysoude is one of the main actors with an international dimension in the area of integration of welding procedures in the industrial area. Have to agree: "This organization is promoting themselves." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They appear to be a major purveyor of industrial welding systems based on this article. Coverage about the company's products appear in trade magazines (and aren't in English): [16], [17]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 18 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 fails WP:GNG. coverage merely confirms existence. WP:COI issues of article creator. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per sources provided by user Whpq. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is the best route for this article, rather than deleting it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:36, 20 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} 04:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added a link to the external links section of the article: French tube fabricator meets volume increase with orbital welding, which has significant information about Polysoude. It's uncertain whether it's an original article from 'The Fabricator' publication or a reprint sourced from a press release. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 05:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SD Loveday[edit]

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

Not a single Google news hit for this company, there are six hits, but they are all from the 1800`s :o) [18] The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true - composers don't seen to get much press. But search "Stephen Loveday" or "Darren Loveday" on Google videos and there are 4-5 pages of results of their film and TV compositions. (Sorry I haven't done this Discussion before - hope I'm doing it right?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isletsoflangerhans (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references in the article, and googling around certainly can verify that Stepehen and Darren Loveday are working composers providing original music for a variety of productions. However, the credits are to the individuals, and make no mention of the company "SD Loveday" which is the subject of the article. I can find no substantial coverage about "SD Loveday" in independent reliable sources to meet WP:CORP, the inclusion guidelines for companies. Looking at the individuals that form the company, I can find no substantial coverage about them individually either. Substantial coverage about either composer would suggest that converting to a personal biography as a solution, but in this case, without that coverage, it's not advisable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 16 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) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in any of the references. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 26 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} 04:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "delete" !voters characterization of the sources as unreliable is not accurate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinggis vodka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. It's sold in Mongolia but doesn't appear to be the subject of any significant and/or independent coverage. Besides, it's a one-line article with no further detail provided. Several Times (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in ~~Weak Delete~~ territory on this one. I know it doesn't matter if independent sources are in English, but the awards alone just don't seem like significant coverage. Is there anything else? Several Times (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks good enough for me now. Several Times (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative keep~~Keep It seems to have won a World Spirits Award in 2010 (caveat: I can't view the WSA webpage and so can't verify this), which would convey a modicum of notability. Most references are fleeting, but there are a lot of them. Article is in need of substantial expansion, though; at present it's barely a stub. Yunshui (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"To access the private area of this site, please log in." They won't let you see their past award winners without logging in. I don't see any news coverage at all about that award though. Is this a major magazine? Any coverage of their award would be in a language other than English. Being reviewed in a printed magazine dedicated to this field, would make them notable, as would winning an award from that magazine. If they are in it, Keep, it not, I don't know. Dream Focus 22:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing has been found or asserted that makes the product notable. Off2riorob (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to have won a Double Gold award in the World Spirits Competition 2011, as well. Yunshui (talk) 10:13, 22 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} 04:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's won a few other medals as well; I've added the Prod Expo 2009 and Monde Selection 2010 medals, plus source, to the article. I think notability's now met, so I'm amending my !vote, above, to a solid Keep. Yunshui (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(couple more facts and refs added just now) Yunshui (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - the addition of blogs or not reliable externals is detrimental. ref one is a blog -http://blog.timesunion.com/dowdondrinks and is the only link to that blogger on en wikipedia. ref two is a local tourism promo website, used in this single article on the en wikipedia - ref three is a simple comment blog post - unused in any other en wikipedia article - ref four is just a signed in user blog post from an external location used, probably against guidelines only in a couple of other en wikipedia articles.. ref five (the last one) is also another promo almost unused external behindcity.com - all in all a load of unreliable blog posting promo crap. Ask yourself does it belong in this category Category:Brand name alcohol products or by supporting this weak cited promo article are you assisting its inclusion in the category. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Off2riorob; all the refs are unreliable to a certain degree, and I can't see this article get pass Start-class. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to claim that the references aren't a bit sparse, but the argument that a particular source is rarely used elsewhere on WP just doesn't seem to hold water. Sources don't have to be commonly used to be relevant or even reliable, nor are all blog posts automatically unreliable. Rather, the availability of references like these suggests to me that more reliable or impartial sources are likely to exist- they just may not be as easy to access or be in the language I'd prefer. If the subject appears notable and can be described in a neutral and verifiable way, I see no reason to delete it outright. Besides, suggesting that weak support is a reason to refrain from including this article in the category mentioned above doesn't make much sense when the category already includes articles like Wódka Żołądkowa Gorzka with little to no references at all. Several Times (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The retention of Wódka Żołądkowa Gorzka isn't much of an argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but that same guideline also backs up your argument that use of a source elsewhere in Wikipedia is irrelevant. As to the sources:

1 seems okay to me under WP:NEWSBLOG (although it doesn't really provide much information on the topic).
2 is from a department of the Mongolian government, I reckon that's an RS even if it is the tourist board.
3 is a blog, albeit a professional one, but I suspect that the award's official site (can't access this myself) could be used in its place.
4 is, I'll grant you, a blog (it looked like an online magazine to me at first glance), but the information therein should be replicated elsewhere. Should probably be replaced ASAP, though.
5 is data apparently taken directly from the Mongolian goverment, again.

Yes, they aren't exactly the New York Times or Reuters, but with the exception of number 4 I reckon they all just about scrape past WP:RS. As Several Times points out, there are probably more reliable sources available in other languages, but I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention during Mongolian class at school, so I can't find them. Yunshui (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and no reliable evidence either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After I saw this discussion I started an article on UFC Group. If there's no consensus to keep this little vodka article, probably the content would fit into the UFC Group#Products section, where it would have more context (UFC Group seems to produce several labels of vodka and other spirits, and I get the sense that English media are lumping several different ones into a single "Chingis vodka"). —Eric Baer (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 05:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Andrè[edit]

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

Non-notable: Has only one fight with a notable organization thus fails WP:MMANOT, search results have the usual results for MMA fighters but no significant coverage thus fails WP:GNG TreyGeek (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria for MMA and I see nothing else for which he can be considered notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Chaos[edit]

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

This alter-ego non-character is not really notable. FWIW, none of the real characters in The Cannonball Run have their own pages D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cannonball Run... no reason this needs a full AfD. Powers ^T 13:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced article which subject, the alter-ego of a fictional character, does not meet the general notability guideline and the article itself is a summary-only description, unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not adverse to a proper merge and redirect, the character of Captain Chaos has enough coverage in books and news to meet WP:GNG. Article will need cleanup, yes... but it is no longer unsourced. And that other Cannonball Run characters do not have articles is more an argument for their creation (if enough sources exist to meet WP:GNG) than it is an argument for deletion... and FWIW, at one time Wikipdia did not have articles for fictional characters Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca, Princess Leia or even James T. Kirk. ANY article is created or allowed through application of guideline, whether for a fictional character or not... and as with ANY article, we deal with sourcability and verifiability, not what does not (yet) exist. If this was a real person, rather than fictional, it is easy to see that WP:GNG is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. New York Times says the character was one of the only three reasons to sit through the films. [19] They show a video clip of him even. The book results seem to add to his notability as well. Dream Focus 09:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sources found. No objection to an editorial merge into a list of cannonball run characters, which could certainly be fleshed out with descriptions of the other major characters. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 3 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} 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Miaris[edit]

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

No reliable sources exist. The subject does not satisfy WP:GNG. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost qualifies for speedy. nothing in gnews. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thank you for the advice. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE.--Slon02 (talk) 00:16, 4 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 Ron Paul. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Paul[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The CSD was declined because the article's creator included "It has since become one of Ron Paul's most popular unofficial blog and forum" into the article. I can't find any independent sources to verify the article. Ish dar ian 03:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Daily Paul should stay because it is one of the biggest blogs/forum for Ron Paul, I do believe this article meets the criteria to stay. And in fact if you google the Daily Paul, you will find many results for it. LIbertyInSpace (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to go off of? I did Google "Daily Paul", and a good chunk of the responses are to the site itself. Others are not reliable sources, or are reports of the same information. Ish dar ian 03:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there appears to be a lack of direct references to the blog on other sites, but google does generate 544,000,000 results for the site. LIbertyInSpace (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What?! I'm getting 321,000 tops, excluding Wikipedia and the site itself. By the way, have you read WP:GNG yet? Ish dar ian 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read it. How did you get 321,000? I simply googled "daily paul", and it said there was 544,000,000 results. Did I do something wrong? LIbertyInSpace (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you're getting everything with "Daily" and "Paul" in it. You need to search for the term "Daily Paul", in quotes in the search box, which gives me ~495,000 including Wikipedia, mirrors, and the site itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

Merge/redirect to Ron Paul. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be up for that. I wanted to merge it with the site's creator, but he doesn't seem notable enough to have his own page. Ish dar ian 05:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ron Paul. Ish dar ian 05:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. But do you not agree that 495,000 is enough to warrant an article? And I am fine with a merge, I just think that a separate article is better considering Ron Paul's article is already very large. LIbertyInSpace (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't agree. Unless some reliable sources spring up, this subject does not deserve it's own article. Ish dar ian 06:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would Alexa count as a source? LIbertyInSpace (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa would be a start, but more sources are needed about the site itself. Ish dar ian 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. How about this: http://digg.com/search?q=site:dailypaul.com&sort=relevance&age=last_month LIbertyInSpace (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Digg is nice, but it's not a WP:RS. Ish dar ian 19:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is about all I can provide. You can do what you want with the article, but the fact remains that the Daily Paul is indeed Ron Paul's most popular fan-site. LIbertyInSpace (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Ron Paul. Not enough coverage in secondary reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. As for the arguments regarding Google search results, see WP:GYNOT & WP:GHITS.--JayJasper (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was a "GoogleBoy". lol LIbertyInSpace (talk) 04:40, 1 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 no consensus. Whether this should be renamed can take place on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Newton, Sr.[edit]

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

Notable only for involvement in son's high profile recruiting controversy, most of content is about Cam. ~~WP:BLP1E~~ WP:BIO1E applies here, and Newton also fails WP:ATH as he never played a game in the NFL. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree completely with Eagles that this is a ~~BLP1E~~ BIO1E issue—and the most concerning thing is that the one event is very negative. Jenks24 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly fails WP:ATH, but WP:BLP1E is not relevant when the one event lasts for several months and causes him to be in the media for all of that time. He was broadly covered in the media from October/November 2010 until January 2011 and continued to be mentioned until the April 2011 NFL draft. There are several articles in the press that focus on him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- BLP1E is for the subjects of articles who otherwise attempt to maintain private lives after having been caught up in an incident. Mr. Newton does not, in my opinion at least, meet this criteria, in fact choosing to remain in the public spotlight. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT While there are a lot of eyes on this page, should Cecil Newton (disambiguation) be moved to Cecil Newton, with Cecil Newton moved to Cecil Newton, Jr.?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue by TonyTheTiger. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO1E. If he was never apart of the Cam Newton scandal, would he be notable? No, so because of this, BIO1E applies here in my mind.--Giants27(T|C) 20:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we take into account that people are looking for this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. You created the page yesterday and the page view count skyrocketed because of it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, it now seems that about 400 people a day are looking for this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page views ≠ Notability. Besides, I think most of the views are coming from the article being linked at Cam Newton, which gets thousands of views each day. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:33, 23 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) 01:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. I agree with Giants27 that Newton Sr. would certainly not be famous if he were not part of this scandal. I diverge from him, however, in my reading of the application of BIO1E. As I see it, the guideline suggests that an article can be kept in circumstances such as this, even if the person is famous only for his role in this scandal (which I agree w/Giants27 is the case). As to BIO1E, the guideline tells us, "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event ... [i]n considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered.... as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I agree that Cecil Sr is WP:BLP1E. Most of the article deals with Cecil Sr.'s actions as they affect Cam, just look at how many times Cam's name is mentioned. However, I think this article should remain as a spinoff of the recruiting controversy, and the content in Cam Newton should be summarized and referred to this article for details. This article should not be a BLP about Cam Sr and should be renamed with personal details about Cam Sr that are not notable to the controversy removed, but that can be dealt with outside of this AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Cam Newton recruiting scandal or anything other than Cam Newton, Sr, otherwise delete. I am changing my previous "keep" !vote, as WP:AFD allows renaming to be an outcome, and I do not want this article kept if the article is not renamed. From my comments at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr.: "The information not related to the scandal might be substantive, but it is not substantial. The fact that he is an ex-football player and father of Cam and Cecil Jr can go into Cam Newton and Cecil Newton, Jr.. It doesnt make sense to have all this duplicate information here on the scandal that is also in Cam Newton, and it wouldn't make sense for Cam's article to include a summary of the scandal that points to his father's article—it should be a summary of an article solely about the scandal. Notability is not inherited, so his being a father is not all that notable. Also, his playing career in not notable per WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. If one event is the only thing notable about a person, adding non-notable accomplishments is masking his lack of notability. Knowing his background doesnt really help us understand the scandal more."—Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking closer at the Cecil Newton, Sr. article and the Cam Newton article, it doesn't appear that the Cecil Newton, Sr. article expands upon the controversy any further than what is already at the Cam Newton article and could meet CSD A10. It appears that the entire Cecil Newton, Sr.#Scandal details section is copied word-for-word from Cam Newton#Eligibility controversy~~, which is actually considered a copyright violation per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia without attribution (could also meet CSD G12).~~ Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (Struck out after issue has been resolved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Look more closely. I augmented what was at Cam Newton significantly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I may need to note that large portions of the text are duplicated from another article, but I don't see an example of how to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - {{copied}} is a template I should have known about a long time ago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about the notable scandal, so just rename it with the word "Scandal" in it. Dream Focus 03:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I started a related discussion at Talk:Cecil_Newton, Sr.#Change article to deal with the scandal instead of BLP about Cecil Sr..~~—Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Although he is not notable for his biographical content, the article has substantive content that would have to be purged from wikipedia if the title is changed. I am not sure that is good for WP. I think there should be a redirect from a scandal title to this article so that the biographical content can be WP:PRESERVED.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I think this Delete/Keep decisions should be separate from a rename/move decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed . Please see my response and place all further discussion on content (if the article is kept) at Talk:Cecil_Newton, Sr.#Change article to deal with the scandal instead of BLP about Cecil Sr.~~ —Bagumba (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:AFD allows for an outcome of rename, it should be discussed here in the AfD. I changed my previous "keep" !vote to "rename" above.—Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a rename requires that over 25% of the content be removed then that is suppose to require a separate discussion at a place like WP:RM. A complicated rename that requires significant content change should not be handled here. AFDs are regarding content as is. Note that when you click on the "renamed/moved" link in the opening paragraph of WP:AFD it talks about pages ready to "go live", not pages in need of significant editing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of this article duplicates content about one event in Cam Newton, the rest serves to mask his father's lack of notability. I would agree that an AfD is not the forum for a general rename, but the original nomination was to delete the article because of his father's lack of notability. The rename is an alternative to deletion suggested by me (and seemingly by Dream Focus also) to have a spinoff from Cam Newton, where some relevant facts and details not suitable for Cam Newton's article could be added. This would be done summary style to avoid duplicated text.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With half the !voters here being of a "keep" view, it is likely unless matters change that this will be kept either as a keep or no-consensus, but I expect that you could continue to seek consensus for a re-name (which as you say can be a separate issue) at the article talk page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can continue on the article talk page depending on the outcome, but it seems a bit rigid to move this to WP:RM or to the article talk page when there is still an ongoing discussion. Hopefully previous !voters or new participants can give input on the proposal to rename and summarize the Cam Newton article section on the scandal.—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I agree completely as to timing. It would appear POINTy if it took place at the same time.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 1 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} 05:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oriol Rosell[edit]

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

PROD removed without any proper reason. Footballer has not played at a fully-professional level of football, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 21:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 21:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, failing WP:NSPORT, and has not received significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spanish professional footballer - Liga Adelante (Second division). Mega60 (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, hasn't actually played for them yet though. --Jimbo^[online] 13:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spanish professional footballer - Liga Adelante (Second division). Raulseixas (talk) 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Still hasn't played. Being on the bench twice doesn't confer notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:10, 26 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) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Player also fails the football notability guideline WP:NFOOTBALL because he has not yet played for a club in the Spanish second division. The guideline states specifically: "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:58, 2 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinist[edit]

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

Essentially a recreation of Kinism, and like all previous incarnations of that article, this one has no reliable sources nor proof of notability. It also seems to be a soapbox, openly describing non-kinist worldviews as "horrifying". See also this AFD. Difluoroethene (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This small movement is mentioned in the book Quiverfull: inside the Christian patriarchy movement (Beacon Press 2009, p. 122, available at G-books). The supporters and opponents of the movement led a dispute on the websites Puritan News Weekly and Faith and Heritage, however, I'm not sure whether the websites could be considered as reliable sources. That's all I found. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a couple paragraphs in Intelligence Report [20], not quite significant coverage, but it makes me wonder if there's more out there. Also, I trimmed down the article to cut out some of the major POV issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christian Reconstructionism on the basis of similarity and the lack of complete sources for this particular subject. The material really looks like it would be more relevant and have better support in the context of a larger, established article. Several Times (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They really don't seem that similar to me. Christian Reconstructionists do have out-of-the-mainstream views, but they aren't racist (at least not openly, anyway), whereas this group seems to be primarily about race and not much else. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, their focus is different and merging could cause more damage than benefit. However, User:Several Times is right, with such incoherent puzzle pieces it is difficult to compile a decent article. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after a little reading I do see that Kinism is more of a racial belief system than a religious one. Perhaps it would be more appropriate within the article on paleoconservatism. Wherever it goes, it looks like retaining NPOV may be difficult. Several Times (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References from reliable sources have now been added. St Anselm (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made by StAnselm. It is now a useful and reliably sourced addition to our coverage of US religious movements. I would suggest renaming it to Kinism. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attack article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am relisting this for further consideration. I would add, however, that I would not consider this an attack article; sourced criticism is a legitimate part of article development. Having said that, it is a matter for editorial judgement whether the criticism goes too far and requires balancing content. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 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, TerriersFan (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are insufficient to write an article covering the subject in full since they are mostly trivial (and adversarial) mentions. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—per StAnselm. i do see that this is quite borderline as far as the number of reliable sources goes, but i think that the book Quiverfull is solid (let's recall that sources don't have to be about a topic to help it meet the gng, but have to do more than mention it. this book does that), and can in no way be considered an adversarial source. also, in the case of extremely fringey hate groups, i would argue that splc studies should count as reliable sources. they are often the first to discover and investigate these groups, and their reports are cited in scholarly works by academics who study new religious movements (although admittedly that doesn't seem to be happening yet with kinism). although the splc might reasonably be called an adversarial source, i think that the fact that their research is both conducted by and taken seriously by scholars is reason enough to count it as reliable sourcing on this kind of topic. i also support a move to Kinism.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, when I first commented I had expected this to be quickly deleted, so it's good to see it getting a fair hearing. I'm still torn, since there really isn't that much out there on them. But I do think the article is basically neutral in that it accurately represents the treatment in the subject in reliable sources. I suppose my inclination would be to keep the content for now and open a discussion to discuss the most suitable merge target. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline, but the present minimal coverage is the appropriate extent. I do not see how we can get NPOV with a merge: it's too much of a value judgment lumping all similar organizations together into a single article as if they were all entirely alike. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeping people informed of these groups is important. More are just harmless imbeciles, but some can be dangerous. References have been found which are good enough. Dream Focus 01:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hookers, Escorts and Masseurs Association[edit]

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

Recreation of repeatedly deleted nont notible content.Gtroy (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like their meetings would be fun, but I could find no coverage of this organization or their founders in reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding any sources either. You got to wonder what they do at their annual convention, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Rad[edit]

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

The group appears to fail the notability of WP:BAND. Some of the references on the page are simply blogs other self-published sources. Several are simply news articles of the band getting banned from clubs after a brawl. And all but one of the rest just gives quick mentions of the group or upcoming performances. The only article that briefly mentions something notable is from Spin Magazine giving them an award. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search found several articles on them from the Seattle Times. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band is smart to have a Media list, my problem is that I was only willing to click on one link after getting the general impression that all of the sources are from Seattle. Moving on, I don't agree that brawling does not "attract attention". If there were a bands of Seattle article, maybe the material could be merged there. Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:Notability exists independently of the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article. By only looking at the content of the article, nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion, which is Speedy keep reason #1. Unscintillating (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other sources I found were mentions of the brawl at the night club, which is not something that makes the group a group that remains noteworthy. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll redact the sk, also. Unscintillating (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my bad - I thought I had said that in the AFD wording - must have been somewhere else. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:42, 26 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, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Seattle Times returns a lot of results in Google news archive search. This [21] for instance proves the band is notable. It gets coverage. Searching for results without "Seattle Times" in them, shows various hits, such as this one. [22] Dream Focus 11:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 02:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hispanic players in Major League Baseball[edit]

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

Not sure what about being Hispanic in MLB is so notable that makes this a standalone list. Aside from the Hispanics from the U.S., it's redundant to the pages in {{MLB players by national origin}} – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:59, 20 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) 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inclusion criteria are unclear. How are players whose parents, grandparents, etc. are not all Hispanic handled, and why?—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and not a notable intersectionCurb Chain (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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