Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 27 October	29 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. The crux of the arguments to delete seem to hinge on the idea that appropriate sources are not currently attached to the article. Of course that is preferred but the keep camp seems to have demonstrated that the sources do exist and this person is notable, it is just that the sources are in Japanese and unfortunately no users fluent in both Japanese and English have as yet worked to resolve this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shozo Fujita[edit]

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

Not sourced, fails WP:Notability 2011 PROD declined. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. John Z (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May not be too easy to get stuff on the web in English, as his works and works on him are almost all in Japanese, but from the Japanese page, he is clearly a notable figure. Sengo Seishin no Seijigaku: Maruyama Masao, Fujita Shōzō, Hagiwara Nobutoshi (Political Theory of the Postwar Ethos) is the beginning of an review in English of a book in Japanese devoted to him & two others. This appears to be a short book on him. He also influenced Miriam Rom Silverberg, obit here, who could also do with an article. Worldcat holdings on this Shozo Fujita. Not all on this Shozo Fujita, but 771 gbooks hits for this search. DGG should be the authority on this one, though. :-) John Z (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this person is of any notability to the English Wikipedia. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 23:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to indicate or verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no requirement that sources be in the article, or that they be in English, or that they even exist in English, for notability. It is quite clear that this person is notable according to en Wikipedia guidelines, that he was a quite significant academic and thinker. This is not at all a borderline case, but a "leading intellectual of 'postwar Japan'" as the review above puts it. He just wrote in Japanese & most but not all sources on him are in Japanese.John Z (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We're all aware of WP:NONENG which doesn't require English sources for the English Wikipedia, but they are obviously highly preferred. That's irrelevant, the sources here are slim to begin with and don't establish any notability. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It did seem to me that your delete was hard to square with WP:NONENG. There are many sources out there, and they clearly prove strong notability by any standard. Presses don't print collected works of nobodies. People don't write books about nobodies, or review books about them, or call them "leading intellectuals of 'postwar Japan'".John Z (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. And none of them are in the article. Subjects aren't encyclopedic because a lot of stuff pops up on Google. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 04:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's another ref:

Kevin M Doak. "Review essay, Fujita Shozo, Zentaishugi no Jidai Keiken [Experiencing the Period of Totalitarianism]." Social Science Japan Journal 13.1 (1998): 159-162.

--Colapeninsula (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable sources. It doesn't matter whether the sources are english (WP:NONENG) but it does matter if sources are reliable. The one given source doesn't appear to be reliable and doesn't look there are any. Vacation9 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with John Z.There is sufficient evidence of his being an authority in his field. That his writings and the sources are not in English is totally irrelevant. I am prepared to take the factual information in the jaWP as accurate for Japanese topics, (and similarly elsewhere) though of course we have our own standards of /notability , which is any particular case may be more of less stringent than theirs. And we also have to be alive to the possibility of spam elsewhere--but that's not a likely problem here. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richy Nix[edit]

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

Although this article does make sufficient claim of notability to get past speedy, it's not really a compelling claim of notability -- or a properly sourced one, either, relying entirely on primary sources with no evidence provided of proper coverage in music media at all. Furthermore, it's dancing right on the edge of being an outright advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article, with extensive use of promotional marketing language ("combined all the styles and skill gathered in both the hip hop and rock worlds", etc.) As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can Heymann it up to a properly keepable standard, but under current Wikipedia standards it has to be deleted if it stays looking like it does right now. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I checked into the claims made in the article. While social networks and even blogs can help determine the importance of a subject, they can only be used to add support to reputable sources. They by themselves cannot determine notability. I found nothing indicating this musical artist was involved with any of the other artists mentioned. Searching with Google also provides nothing useful. Unless good sources proving notabilitiy can be found, this article should not be in Wikipedia. If in the future this artist expands his experience and there is notability, then by all means a new article should be written. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find mentions of him in event listings and articles about concerts/festivals but there is no significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LCD-Net[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism. Appears to be a proposal by a professor (who happens to have the same name as the article creator), but it hasn't attracted any notice as yet, and certainly not enough to support an article. PROD removed by article creator. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 09:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for the title plus "Lowest Cost Denominator Network" reveals a recent grant on the subject [Here], but I didn't see anything else to prove sufficient sources. This concept may indeed become notable, but for now it seems a neologism per Nom. Celtechm (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see the coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 05:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Not Quite Dead[edit]

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

Despite having some notable names attached to the project (Wheatus, among others) there has been no in-depth coverage of this film in any reliable sources. Other than one or two mentions of being able to be an extra or some insanely brief mentions in various sources that can't be used to show notability, there's nothing out there for this film to show that it merits an article. This just isn't notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Google News archives provided minor mentions, but one of the results, this walesonline.co.uk article from 2009 cited October 2010 as the release date, and yet, that was two years ago. I understand funding and filming a film takes money and time but I would have expected a release date, especially considering the years of hard work. Simultaneously, I went to Google News UK but found nothing different and Google Books provided nothing useful. I also found this blog which provides details but this would be insufficient and never mentions a release date. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that I'm very open to the idea of incubating or userfying this. Hopefully it'll get completed and released, as it sounds like it could be quite interesting.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

Leave - now (in 2012) we have a teaser so this project seems not dead (IMDb) and may be will be released soon. Just awaiting for a little. --Vanquisher 00:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanquisher.UA (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no in-depth coverage in any independent or reliable sources to show that it is going to pass WP:NFILM anytime soon, let alone the more strict WP:NFF. I have no problem if you want to userfy the content to your personal userspace, but we can't keep an article around based upon the justification that it should release this year and might get coverage. It's been in limbo for years now and hasn't received substantial coverage or a release date, so it's also just as likely that it will continue to fly under the radar when it comes to reliable sources and coverage. Saying that it absolutely will and that it should remain just because it "will be released soon" goes against WP:CRYSTAL. I have no problem with you userfying, but we can't keep an article just because it might release soon. Besides, I also see where trailers for the film seem to have released in 2010 with the promise of a 2011 release date... and nothing happened. Similar story in 2011 where a trailer was released but nothing happened. When you consider that this has been going on for years, the promise of a teaser isn't really much promise at all. Besides, just having a guaranteed release at all still doesn't guarantee notability. There are a lot of films, especially indie ones, that release and never gain enough notability to warrant an article. At this point the article doesn't even come close to passing notability guidelines and with the way some of it is/was written, it's pretty much just an exercise in back patting and self-promotion. If you're the director or anyone involved in the film, I'd highly recommend that if you do userfy it, that you get someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to assist you in keeping the promotional speak out of the article and to help avoid any potential WP:COI.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's been in limbo for years now and hasn't received substantial coverage or a release date [...] it comes to reliable sources and coverage.. Release date is announced. Next from official site: "Shooting Has Begun, Every £/$ Counts". In 2011, the pre-credits, stand alone intro sequence was shot for `Invasion', and from December 2012, we will begin shooting the main bulk of the movie, with all make up, fx & prosthetic scenes aimed for March 2013, we will be working towards having a completed movie by Halloween 2013. For next one: There are a lot of films, especially indie ones, that release and never gain enough notability to warrant an article. Agreed. Yes, that project is indie film and still in production (4 years). The project is not abandoned, activity detected on official facebook, official director's tweater. Compare this project with Dead Roses which seems to be abandoned from 2007 but still have wiki-page. For last one: If you're the director or anyone involved in the film [...]. I'm none of the above. --Vanquisher 10:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanquisher.UA (talk • contribs)
Well, first off, primary sources (anything released by anyone involved with the film in any way, shape, or form) cannot show notability and facebook isn't usable as a source at all. As far as whether or not there is activity being done on those pages, it actually doesn't count towards notability either. You could have an indie film that religiously records each day's activities, but that activity wouldn't really matter because what shows notability is coverage in independent and reliable sources- which this movie lacks. The official sites could announce that they're going to show this film tomorrow and that still wouldn't matter because all that proves is that the movie was shown and that it exists. Existing is not notability, nor is having a film shown anywhere. As far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, all that means is that means is that the other article (in this case Dead Roses) has not been listed for deletion yet. If you want, you can even nominate it yourself. The reason that the lack of any solid release date is being consistently mentioned here is because the film has consistently been pushed back release-wise for years now and that paired with the complete lack of interest by any reliable sources that would otherwise cover indie films or films in general, is a good indication of non-notability in the present and a fairly good indication that the film is likely to remain as such for the forseeable future. A lot of RS are leery about reporting about films that don't have set release dates and are continually in limbo. Having a release date might help it get coverage, but until/if coverage in RS actually appears we have no reason to keep the article. It all boils down to in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the article, which we don't have.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found something interesting: announce stage or about first communications (2006-2007) article 1, article 2, article 3, archived IMDb page 1, article 4, article 5, article 5 and initial wiki-page about subject. Pre-production stage or about "pre-production" (2007-2012) article I, archived IMDb page I, article II, article III, article IV and article V. Filming stage (2011-2012) teaser and official site (retrieved November 2, 2012) (re-cited): "Shooting Has Begun, Every £/$ Counts". In 2011, the pre-credits, stand alone intro sequence was shot for Invasion, and from December 2012, we will begin shooting the main bulk of the movie, with all make up, fx & prosthetic scenes aimed for March 2013, we will be working towards having a completed movie by Halloween 2013. Now I know one thing: "This project is really creeping". Decide with a good conscience. Vanquisher 14:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanquisher.UA (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This has not been 'in limbo' for years, the project and film are very much in the forefront, the directors have been interviewed by relevant industry sources including SciFi Now ^[1] and the project was even mentioned by NME because of MC Frontalot's involvement ^[2]. Expecting a 100% crowdfunded film to be able to hit the same schedules as a standard hollywood film is, frankly, naive. Jonn blanchard (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now added more recent link to the external links section. These show the project is far from dead and as an indie film getting that much attention also proves that it is very much notable enough. Jonn blanchard (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.scifinow.co.uk/blog/invasion-of-the-not-quite-dead-director-interview/
^ http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/blzSzD4JTnQ/search/wheatus

The first link is good, but the second one for NME wouldn't be because it's not really an article or anything in-depth about the movie. It also looks like the sort of thing that is uploaded by someone involved with the film or its production/promotion, so it wouldn't be usable as something that would show notability for the film. Remember, this would fall under WP:NFF, so it would need a lot of coverage to show that it's notable since it's a film that has not yet released and has not been completed. Here's the big issues I had with the sources and links on the article:

[1] This is a press release. It doesn't matter where they are printed, press releases never show notability.
[2] Search my Trash isn't a site that would show notability here on Wikipedia.
[3] This is a relatively new online magazine and it isn't really something that has proven itself as a reliable source yet.
[4] This one is good and would actually count as a RS. However we need more than just one link to show notability for an as of yet unreleased and unfinished film.
[5] This is pretty much a non-notable blog. Blogs almost never show notability except in rare circumstances and this isn't the case here.
[6] This is another non-notable blog, which cannot be used to show notability.

Other than that, everything else is a primary source or is something that would otherwise not show notability. So far the only usable source is the SciFi Now article and we need more than one article to show notability for an unreleased film.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, even if it's an indie film it still has to follow the same rules that every other film does. I know it's harder for indie and niche films to get the coverage that a big Hollywood blockbuster would and that sometimes the rules seem unfairly skewed towards the more mainstream stuff, but we can't bend the rules just to keep one movie and then expect to hold those same standards to a number of other indie films. We have to treat all of the films the same and the bottom line is that this film hasn't received enough coverage at this point in time to pass WP:NFF. If you want to userfy this and work on it until it's reached that point, then that's fine. I have no problem with that. But until that point in time it shouldn't be kept on here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nic-o-boli[edit]

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

Non-notable, chain-specific food. The refs are poor quality: trip review sites noting that the restaurant exists, but no serious comment upon this as a distinct or notable foodstuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources located outside of brief newspaper mentions and travel book items to support this article. No indication that this food is notable outside of Rehoboth, Delaware, USA. At best this item merits a one-sentence addition to Stromboli as a variant. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 14:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, almost all sources given in the article are dead. May be a city specific food, but in any case is not suitable on an encyclopedia. Vacation9 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You just made a grave mistake deleting this page. The Nic-o-boli is arguably the most famous food item by name on the eastern seaboard of the USA. Google shows no less than 34,000 entries for this product. United States Presidents among other notable figures including athletes and celebrities have had their picture taken at Nicola Pizza (the home of the Nic-o-boli) and seen eating them.

DailyMotion (news video): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xflocy_nicola-pizza-famous-for-nic-o-boli_travel
Check out the Yelp page for Nicola Pizza and read the comments: http://www.yelp.com/biz/nicola-pizza-rehoboth-beach
TripAdvisor ("World Famous"): http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g34048-d396003-r118653677-Nicola_Pizza-Rehoboth_Beach_Delaware.html
See 3,800+ user videos posted from across the globe just about Nic-o-boli's on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nic-o-boli&oq=nic-o-boli
There even books on Amazon, including guide books for Washington DC and Philadelphia PA, that reference Nicola Pizza and their famous nic-o-boli: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nic-o-boli
DC and Philly are HUNDREDS of miles away and the nic-o-boli is still considered a "local" food must-eat item.

Sheesh. Let's have a grown up conversation about this before you go deleting pages arbitrarily just because you've never heard of it. You simply need to search better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaplansa (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. There is a serious charge of original research here, that does seem to be very relevant. Some transfer of content has been carried out to Wikibooks. For the rest, there is minimal support to retain this content on Wikipedia. -Splash - tk 20:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Fascism and German Nazism[edit]

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

Comparing two subjects may be the topic of an essay, but not of an encyclopedic article. I propose to incorporate it in WikiBooks (e.g. here, or start a new one on Variants of Fascism), because it is well-referenced and decently written, or into different Wikipedia articles. But Italian Fascism and German Nazism (the title already shows that it is a comparison of two different subjects) is not a valid lemma in an encyclopedia. --RJFF (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 21. Snotbot t • c » 10:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as someone will take the burden to incorporate the article into WikiBooks (like RJFF (talk) him/herself) it's okay for me.. but otherwise I would suggest to keep the article. For example the Oktoberfest terror attack it's still waiting for translations from the German and French wikipedia articles but it's still incompleted. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. Alternatively, it could be merged into the WP article on Fascism in Europe. It might be an adequate place to discuss the differences of the two most notable national variants of fascism in Europe. --RJFF (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Sorry, but merging with the WP article Fascism in Europe wasn't what we were talking about. A comparison article between Nazism and Fascim IMHO it's okay and should stay at this point. There are much less encyclopedic articles that are still in WP and also because we are at the 2nd nomination for deletion the article should stay. Sorry. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Incorporating the article in Wikibooks is the better idea than merging with Fascism in Europe. I will do the former and hope that this may justify the deletion of the article from Wikipedia. Fascism in Europe could then link to the corresponding parts of WikiBooks. Btw, pointing to other unencyclopedic articles does not justify keeping more unencyclopedic articles (compare WP:Other stuff exists). --RJFF (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay. Merge appropriate material. Red fascism is a similar essay comparing apples to oranges and describing how they are both fruits. Carrite (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay, not an article. It is rife with original research. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 23:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Merge in Fascism in Europe, preserving sourced information (Changed !vote after TFD noticed it is a fork --Cyclopia ^talk 22:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC) ) The relationship/comparison between Italian Fascism and German Nazism is by all means a notable topic -the coverage in WP:RS is huge, and the article has plenty of them. There are even whole books on this subject: see this, this or (in Italian) this. If the article intermingles authors' opinions/OR then we could purge it of such stuff, but this is no reason to delete an article on an obviously notable topic. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking notability was not the reason to nominate this article for deletion. Unfortunately it seems that you have not read my rationale. I know that it is a notable topic - for an essay, or even a book; but not for an encyclopedia article. Therefore I have already proposed to move the relevant and well-sourced material to WikiBooks. --RJFF (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking notability was not the reason to nominate this article for deletion. - Problem is, lacking notability is almost the only reason to nominate an article for deletion on WP. If a topic is notable, then it is presumed to warrant an article, generally speaking. You're basically admitting you nominated this article for deletion for no meaningful reason. There is no "better suited for a book" deletion rationale in our policy, AFAIK. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research. The article has sections for different policies then outlines both Fascist and Nazi approaches, rather than use sources that compare the two ideologies. It POV therefore because it explains what the writer wants to compare rather than explain how sources compare the two. Also, it is a POV fork of Fascism in Europe, which was originally called "Italian Fascism and German Nazism", and survived AfD before being transferred. TFD (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's a fork can surely change my mind, but I am unsure of the POV pushed in the article. Can you clarify? To me, it looks like there could be stuff to merge from there in the Fascism in Europe article. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Italian Fascism and German Nazism#Positions on race 2 It begins by saying, without providing a source, "A major source of contention between the Nazis and the Italian Fascists was the Nazis' emphasis on a Nordic ideal of the Aryan race, and the historic antagonisms between German and Italian cultures. It then provides pictures of examples of 4 sub-types of the "Caucasian race", presumably selected by the editor. It then outlines how Germans and Italians, not necessarily nazis or fascists, viewed themselves and each other. It then provides a subsection about how the Fascists initially treated the Jews with "tolerance". None of this is sourced to comparative studies.

The POV aspect is that descriptions of both are presented side by side, leading the reader to the conclusion that Fascism was not as evil as Nazism. While that may be a rational conclusion, we should have sources that make that point so that we can see whether it is perceived wisdom. (Although I imagine that is a general assumption.)

The original article also provides a comparison in Fascism in Europe#Racism, and just like the fork, it has sections comparing foreign affairs and explaining how Nazis and Fascists viewed each other. Despite the title, it covers the same ground.

TFD (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand both articles cover the same ground. I also agree with the assessment of the pictures. For the rest, I see what you mean -I understand sourcing more strictly focused on comparative sources would be vastly better. However 1) I don't see critical POV issues with the article: that kind of assessment it's basically common knowledge to whoever has read about the topic (and it is usually made in RS) -if anything, I'd call it more of a technical synthesis issue. 2) some of the sources look indeed comparative from the title -see ref.52 and following, "Koshua D. Zimmerman. Jews in Italy under Fascist and Nazi rule, 1922-1945. New York, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2005.", about Fascist vs Nazist treatment of Jews you referred to. Unfortunately I have no access to them to make sure that the article coverage follows them, but I'd assume good faith on this, unless reasons are given to not to. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably not productive to get into discussions of why the article may be POV, just that the structure is open to POV. The editors have selected their own categories to compare and have selected the descriptions for each rather than first determining what comparisons experts make. My general impression is that it overemphasizes their differences over their similarites, devoting far more space to differences and disputes between their leaders and very little space to their similarities. That they are more different than the same is a minority viewpoint. TFD (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything except with That they are more different than the same is a minority viewpoint. - it's more nuanced and complex than that. But yeah, it's true that the way it is written may be "open to POV" -still this is a matter of content discussion. I feel there's lots of material to merge there. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Attack on Sutton Street: Poltergeists and Paranormal Entities[edit]

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

This movie has no reliable sources to show that it is ultimately notable and a search doesn't bring up anything that would show that this has received any coverage that would show it passes WP:NFILMS. It's pretty much your standard non-notable mass produced horror film. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any useful sourcing, either. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 20:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan Wang[edit]

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

It's possible that this paleontologist is notable -- but certainly nothing in the article states that. The only reference is to a meeting with a visiting scientist! Delete unless notability further established. --Nlu (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full pass of WP:Prof#C1 with GS h-index of 31 and 8 papers with +100 cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Museum director gives a plausible case for notability and Xxanthippe's findings indicate a clear pass of WP:PROF. I'm not particularly concerned about the quality of the current sources of the article, for one thing because they're not used to source very much and for another because I would expect that the main reason we haven't turned up better ones is the language barrier rather than their nonexistence. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Frankly a borderline speedy since every claim to notability is via a redlink. -Splash - tk 20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Kowalczyk[edit]

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

No independent sources proving WP:Notability. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a lot of input here, but I've also reviewed the article, and it's a clear delete. Could probably have been {{prod}}ed. -Splash - tk 22:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-Myth[edit]

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

While the topic of this article is fuzzy, the lede suggests the core of the topic is the term, which would be unlikely to meet WP:NEO. The article also indicates it's a brand and a company as well. Refactoring to something else might be possible, but the existing article has some serious problems. I will be removing some content for a serious POV concern, the current revision at the time of nomination can be found here. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Propio Auto[edit]

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

this is a textbook for high schools, connected to a system of learning which appears notable, but which is itself of no particular importance. author is a redirect to the teaching method he copyrighted, whose article seems overly detailed. publisher likewise not currently notable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there was an article for Blaine Ray, I would have suggested redirecting. Although TPR Storytelling mentions him several times, redirecting this book to that article wouldn't be appropriate. Unfortunately, Google News and Books found no evidence of third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find anything that showed that this book has received any independent and reliable coverage, nor anything to show that it's really all that widely used in various classrooms. I agree with ST that redirecting this to the TPR article probably wouldn't be appropriate in this circumstance.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Vacation9 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works Well with Others[edit]

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see CBC [7], Fast Forward Weekly [8], Vue Weekly [9], The Georgia Straight [10], ChartAttack [11], Metro Canada [12] 86.44.24.94 (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the amazing information shown by the IP 86.44.24.94, which indeed prove not only how this article meets GNG but also NMUSIC. I will tag it for improvement. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may also be useful: [13] [14] [15] [16] — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{sofixit}} — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to, but I am not interested in music articles by now xD I may bring it to WP:AFI so that other users may do the job after this AFD is closed :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Land use/land cover (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is not a true disambiguation page; it is basically a dictionary definition with one source and links to two related pages. There is no indication that either of the linked pages are individually referred to by the phrase "Land use/land cover", so they are not ambiguous to it. A properly formatted disambiguation page would require both links to be removed from the page, leaving nothing. bd2412 T 21:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A disambiguation page for two articles (Land use and Land cover) that are separate and not ambiguous. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--xanchester (t) 21:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It also breaks pretty much every other guideline for dab pages: references, multiple bluelinks, even periods. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: certainly not a dab page, it's a misnamed stub but seems unlikely to go beyond a dicdef, so I've just created a couple of redirects from the undisambiguated term and variations, to Land use where the "couplet" is discussed and cited. PamD 12:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an ambiguous title, and even if it were, speedyable under G6 and {{db-disambig}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xanchester. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Coffland[edit]

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

Bio about a computer scientist that does not claim notability for the subject. Sources are either primary sources, forum posts or trivial mentions in articles about other subjects. There seems to be some COI judging by the article creator's user name. Per WP:BEFORE I've tried to find reliable secondary sources, but failed. It actually looks speediable to me, but taking it to AfD to allow time for sources to be added. bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin does decide to delete the page, please copy the text to User:Jcoffland/sandbox first so that we can continue to work on it. The two names are the same person, but I'd disagree that it's a COI. • Jesse V.^(talk) 21:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the two names are the same person, and you know this for certain, then there's per definition a conflict of interest, as the article is an autobiography. It doesn't follow that a person who edits where there is a COI edits intentionally (or unintentionally) abusively, but the conflict of interest needs to be disclosed and uninvolved editors have to make the decision about the person's notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added multiple citations. Jcoffland (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a brief glance (I haven't had time for more than that) it seems that the citations all support notability for your various projects - but that doesn't automatically mean that you as a person are notable according to Wikipedia's idiosyncratic definition of notability. This has to be stressed. Wikipedia notability is not the same thing as being worthy or important - it's only about whether there are already multiple publications about the person. --bonadea contributions talk 08:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nowhere near enough content to outweigh the serious COI issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source given has significant coverage of Coffland and I can't locate one that has. Hekerui (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per criterion A7; I really don't think this is worth much of a discussion. Go Phightins! 22:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage on reliable sources. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Berry[edit]

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

Only reference is IMDB. Only roles for this actress are in a short film, the voice in a video game, and a character in a film. Fails to show evidence of multiple notable roles per WP:ENTERTAINER. No evidence of 3rd party references that would meet the WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant roles in multiple notable films, doesn't seem to be any indication of a large fan base or following, and not finding any unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and I don't see any other path to notability here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient work to be considered notable and I found nothing with Google News US and Australia when I searched both "Logan 2010 Emily Berry" and "Emily Berry Star Wars". When I searched for evidence to support the commercial with Michael Jordan, I found nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latch (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. No serious coverage, just chart listings as refs etc. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Single charted and received significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - charting is not in itself a reason to keep this article, or meet WP:NMUSIC. But because of the Guardian review and the meaty paragraph in the NYT there may just be enough to sustain a short article. The article will need to be expanded to give more than just chart stats! Sionk (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Song has peaked to number 12 on the UK Singles Chart and has recieved coverage. Greenock125 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : I have reviewed the article. The references are mainly to blogs, discussion boards, or the website itself (which is now gone), or dead links that have been excluded from Internet Archive; none contain anything that would verify the former website's notability. In the previous nomination it has been claimed that "The board [was] frequently quoted in main stream media as a source for breaking broadcasting industry news". The statement came directly from the article's creator, and he didn't provide any references for that. Deleted. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RedandNater.com[edit]

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

There is very little here that is verifiable; most of this is original research or, essentially, reminiscences. Of the nine "references", nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 are dead links; #5 is about someone who might have contributed, but doesn't mention the topic, and #6/7 are fora, not reliable sources. With respect to the previous two AfD processes, the first in 2008 was closed by a non-admin (who has since left the project) using no criteria I can understand, and the second from 2010 was "no consensus", from which I quote: "At some point I presume the board will just die off and then the WP page will be gone …". I believe that time has come. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another radio rumor board dealing in libel and mudslinging which died because the mods grew tired of it. Wasn't even notable at its height beyond a select few obsessed with radio formats and personnel. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anartism[edit]

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

Essentially, Original research by synthesis some kind of manifesto for an artistic movement that contains no reliable sources to demonstrate its use by any expert source. A prod tag was removed by the author for a reason not based in Wikipedia policy. Although I found two references for this neologism in the literature, it is far from clear to me that those authors and this article are referring to the same ideas and I suggest that the idea doesn't have sufficient notability to remain. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article wording is obviously derived from the lead section of the Wikipedia article on Anarchism. As such it has inherited for itself various claims, such as being "a mass social movement (that) has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity" which is true of anarchism, false of anartism. To that extent the article is arguable a WP:CSD G3 hoax? AllyD (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3 of the CSD criteria. Buggie111 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 of the CSD criteria. This so-called movement is not related to the idea of Anartism as explored by Hélène Parmelin, and lacks notability on its own. RDHolland (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since this is a cut-and-paste move. This doesn't need an AfD and the speedy tag was not only valid, but the required response. I will not personally put in place a redirect, since any editor can do that if they wish. -Splash - tk 22:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Racecourse[edit]

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

Colombo Racecourse is a duplicate of Colombo Racecourse Airstrip which has a much older edit history. In order to preserve the edit history Colombo Racecourse Airstrip I tried to speedily delete Colombo Racecourse and move Colombo Racecourse Airstrip but another editor has removed the CSD. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one were to look closely the Colombo Racecourse was created with its own content and content merged from Colombo Racecourse Airstrip since both refer to the same subject. Cossde (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - they seem identical. If not then merge--Petebutt (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query - if they contain ostensibly the same content, why can't one simply be redirected to the other rather than deleted? Stalwart111 (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amountsd to the same thing in effect. We just have to have a discussion about it.--Petebutt (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree they amount to the same, and it's an eminently good faith nomination in that context. I suppose I would have been inclined to simply be bold and redirect one to the other, that's all. If the original editor has a problem with the redirect then it can be raised at WP:RFD. But if there is appetite for a discussion to build some consensus first I certainly won't criticise that! Colombo Racecourse Airstrip is clearly the better of the two in terms of content but Colombo Racecourse is probably a better title. Perhaps Delete Colombo Racecourse and rename Colombo Racecourse Airstrip to "Colombo Racecourse". ~~Or move the content from CRA to CR with a redirect from CRA to the new CR.~~ Stalwart111 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To preserve CRA's longer edit history CR should be deleted and then CRA renamed CR.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the first suggestion, not the second? I might strike my second one, then, if there is more of a consensus for the first to begin with (it came from your first suggestion anyway). Agree with the value of preserving edit history. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Colombo Racecourse and rename Colombo Racecourse Airstrip to "Colombo Racecourse". Stalwart111 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. speedy keep as harassment of an obviously notable living person by a SPA who apparent joined WP for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Coleman[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Kittenz R Us (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he strikes me as possibly notable per WP:PROF, though no evidence is presented in the article (which reads like a resume even after I plucked some feathers). Drmies (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for the following reasons, therefore I nominated the page for deletion:

No significant coverage - sources referenced in the article do not cover the subject in detail. All of the sources are scientific papers published by the subject
Sources - No secondary sources are referenced. Because all sources are published by the same author, they may be considered as a single source for the purpose of establishing notability as described in the General Notability Guidelines
Sources are not independent of the subject - All sources were published by the subject; independent sources are needed to presume notability.

In addition to the notability guidelines, I considered the following when deciding whether to flag for deletion. A notice on the page indicates that there are no links to or from this page on Wikipedia. As noted by UltraXactZZ in the Talk page, most of the edits were made from IP addresses belonging to Ohio State, where the subject is a faculty member. Considering this, along with the tone of the article which reads like a resume rather than a biography, it appears that this page was created by the subject for the purpose of self-promotion. Furthermore, UltraXactZZ's comment is the only post on the article's talk page, which suggests that there is little overall interest in the subject.Kittenz R Us (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A couple people with expertise with the notability of academics need to take a good look at this. Quite possibly notable. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I canvassed Guillaume2303, a rabid inclusionist, and will leave a note for DGG, an equally rabid deletionist (or was it the other way around?). I also left a note for Peridon. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF#1: Web of Science lists over 100 publications, cited over 3000 times, h-index = 32, 5 articles with > 100 cites. Article needs a lot of work (all the "professor"s have to go, for example, and his scientific accomplishments should be fleshed out a bit better). Hi faculty page also lists some honors, at least one of which is sufficient to establish notability (e.g., fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science). The fact that the IPs editing this page map to his university does not necessarily mean that this is an autobio: this could have been one of his students or postdocs, for example. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough to pass. The achievements are more fully detailed in some earlier versions. Could do with something independent on the references, though. It's a lot simpler for footballers - play one game as a pro in a pro league, reference to a statistics book, and you're home and dry (or soaking wet if you played in the UK today...). Peridon (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a Fellow of the AAAS: [17] and [18]. I am hosting the Scopus search result on him here. The citation count is quite high, and so is the h-index. The Journal of the American Chemical Society where a large part of his major publications seems to be is a top journal (thought not among the topmost: see this link from the ISI Web of Knowledge); it is the most highly cited journal in all of chemistry though. There is secondary-source coverage of his non-routine academic titles at The Columbus Dispatch. More on the same lines at the Lantern, which looks like the OSU student newspaper. Coverage of his teaching award in 1998 at OSU. He won a distinguished faculty teaching award in 2004–2005. His Sloan research fellowship seems notable as per the University. There is somewhat-negative information at (May 23, 2005). Government and Policy, 83(21):34–35). We need to be careful with NPOV and WEIGHT there; it is significant enough to be mentioned, but he didn't face any disciplinary action, so there should be no "at fault" implication. For covering his work, one can always go to sources which cite him, see which of those summarize his work, and use them. For other stuff, searching in the OSU student and university newsletters should produce more hits. Apart from that dry stuff, there in an interesting tidbit here, but that is a primary source and probably can't be used. Churn and change (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek destroyer Doxa[edit]

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

I proposed this for deletion. It was contested, with the explanation: "Invalid rationale: no references is not a deletion criterion, and per WP:MILUNIT, the subject is notable in itself". The article, nevertheless, doesn't cite any sources, and there's a deletion criteria that says: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". I could find anything relevant online. Of course, I am not an expert in the history of Greek navy, but surely the person who wrote the article can cite another source. Without any source there's no way to verify the information, so it shouldn't be here. Robkirwan (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - [19] [20] [21] [22] - not much detail but at least they prove the ship did really exist. Roger (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meh, that's a really poor argument for deletion, the sources Dodger67 found probably could have been found by anyone after a minute's google search. Doesn't matter now, the sources have been added into the article, so it's referenced. Buggie111 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily close as Keep. There are thousands upon thousands of articles without sources in WP, we don't simply delete them for that. We delete them if they can be proven not to have sources and/or not to correspond to reality, i.e. that they are hoax articles. I very much doubt if the nominator made even a cursory search on the subject. Constantine ✍ 19:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources have been added and the subject of this article meets the requirements of notability. Argos'Dad 19:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic subject, has been covered by secondary sources. Along with the ones already mentioned, here's another source: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906-1921 published by the United States Naval Institute. There are also some earlier documents from the early 20th century that I'm unable to access. Either way, the subject meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All warships are generally considered to be notable. Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussions have to end eventually! In this case, nothing substantive has been done to really deal with the point that this effectively relies on a single book. The point that there are in-texts reference to core protocols does not mean that the texts are referring to these core protocols, since they are likely mainly to be referring to technical protocols (as in Protocol#Communications or Protocol#Computer related that are at the core of some system, rather than this list of ideas. -Splash - tk 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Core Protocols[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, you state no reliable sources, yet the article mentions a book that is published +10 years ago. This is something that has been growing ever since and has a whole community around it. The rules of Wikipedia state that when an article is up for deletion, we can't bring in other people to defend as this is called Meatpuppets. What else can I/we do to prove this is valid information? YvesHanoulle

A book published by the creators of the concept isn't a independent reliable source, it's a self-published source. It's not a matter of whether the information is "valid", it's about whether the concept is notable. To show that, you have to show that someone other than the creators of the concept have ever actually cared enough about it to write something about it.

That you are contemplating "bring[ing] in other people to defend" means you don't understand the deletion process. It isn't a matter of getting people to gang up and vote. It isn't a vote, it's a discussion. You have to provide reasons in the form of actual sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I just added a few sources. I am not sure if they would be considered as 'reliable sources' - I think at least one of them would be. Let me know what you think. Thx Fgareeboo. 3:53, 8 October 2012 (PST)

Of all the sources that have been added, the only one that is even vaguely close to being a reliable source is the InfoQ article. And that's not nearly significant enough to actually show notability under the WP:GNG. The rest of the sources are all blogs. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Tom ! So that I get a good feel for what is required here (and I have a feeling this does not exist yet), would 1 peer-reviewed paper on the topic in an industry publication (say IEEE ) satisfy the requirement here ? Fgareeboo. 15:29, 8 October 2012 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgareeboo (talk • contribs)

I'd have to see it, but quite probably. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added one more reference to course on Core Protocols taught for last 10 years by Columbia College in Chicago. Fgareeboo (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good thing to add, but I don't think it'll get you much in terms of WP:GNG compliance. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete This is really something of a coatrack for the book Software for Your Head, which seems to have made a very minor splash but which seems to have failed to catch on.
Week Keep - Found one references^[1]. This might be relevant^[2]. Mostly there is a vast amount of content that uses the term core protocol informally. Maybe an expert can help

References[edit]

^ Qing Li; Tatuya Jinmei; Keiichi Shima (2007). IPv6 Core Protocols Implementation. Morgan Kaufmann. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-12-447751-3. Retrieved 19 October 2012.
^ Klaus Fischer; Elisabeth André; Ingo J. Timm (19 October 2006). Multiagent System Technologies: 4th German Conference, MATES 2006, Erfurt, Germany, September 19-20, 2006, Proceedings. Springer. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-45376-5. Retrieved 19 October 2012. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is pure WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In multiple re-listings no support has been found to delete. -Splash - tk 19:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Tait (stuntman)[edit]

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

This article has been deleted before but was rewritten and sent to AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait. I thought it should be deleted the last time because it could not pass WP:BIO; WP:ENT; WP:CREATIVE; or WP:BASIC. I still think so, but even more. Some of the articles that User:Cavarrone and the other people who voted to keep the article now have a disclaimer that says: "This article was a contribution made by an outside agency or person. The content has not been verified by Canyon News. Please exercise your due diligence prior to relying on this article for factual information. Canyon News is not responsible for the views, words, and opinions of contributors."[23] User:Novaseminary wrote more about that here, for what it is worth: Talk:Douglas_Tait_(stuntman)#Canyon_News. At the request of the editor who wrote the article in the first place, I reviewed all of the footnotes at the last AfD, so you can look there for more. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas tait is the first time the article was sent here and deleted. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep the argument about the unreliability of the Canyon River interview was already rised and widely discussed during the previous AfD so... nothing changed. A single primary source (that does not even appear in the article) does not change the things, he passes WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO. Cavarrone (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What changed are these particular Canyon News articles themselves. When you cited the one in the last AfD there was no disclaimer noting these particular articles were not actually Canyon News articles. Now there is. Do you still think these postings are Reliable Sources even though Canyon News now says they are not? Hoppingalong (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently does not list any reference to Canyon News so, what is your point? Cavarrone (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting - There are no new Reliable Sources in the article that I can see since the "no consensus" AfD. Several of what some editors including you seemed to think back then were significant coverage in Reliable Sources--the several Canyon News pieces--were removed, probably because of the disclaimer that was added to those articles since the AfD indicating they were not regular Canyon News articles. You specifically pointed to one of them in the last AfD [24] as being part of the reason to keep the Douglas Tait article. What Reliable Sources do you now think make the article meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT? There might be some, but I do not see any actual discussion of Douglas Tait in Reliable Sources (aside from the dumb, non-significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times discussed to death in other places). If there are some, I will be pleased to withdraw this or change to keep. Hoppingalong (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above the unreliability of the "Canyon News" article (as we are talking about a single interview, not "several articles") was already widely discussed in the firt AfD, at that time the nominator also rised the problem in my talk page and I agreed with him that the C.N. article could not be considered reliable (my fault if I have not edited my comment in that AfD but at that point it was already turned in a battleground so I preferred stay away) but I also pointed that I was still considering the actor passing the guideline for actors for his multiple notable roles (taking as an example the last film of Tait his name is cited in multiple articles ([25], [26]) even before other well-known actors such as Tony Todd and Sally Kirkland). So, probably he fails GNG for lack of indepht coverage but he still passes WP:ENT. Cavarrone (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no Canyon River article that I know of. I think you mean Canyon News. There used to be several of them cited in the article. Either way, I see you think Tait passes WP:ENT, I assume the first factor, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Now I get what you are arguing. I guess I would disagree with that because I don't think a role in an unnotable unreleased film (what you noted above) can qualify. The rest of his roles seem either very minor (non-speakign character roles, etc) or are in non-notable short films he produced himself. I looked hard last time--probably harder than I would have--because the article's creator challenged me to do so on my user talk page. I just don't think he meets the "significant", "multiple", or "in notable films" parts of that factor, at least yet. At least I hope you will acknowledge why this is not a snow keep situation--it was no consensus last time and seems weaker this time, not stronger--though I realize you base your keep on WP:ENT which would be the same strength as last time. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My vote was a snow keep as your rationale has as major argument the unreability of a reference that is not more included in the article (for months), a question that was already discussed to death and that, despite you still refer to "several articles", was related just to a single interview (please verify). If you think he fails WP:ENT, sorry, but this is my humble opinion, and, more generally, I feel the arguments for keeping the article in the previous afd are a bit stronger than the delete votes. That said, I will not die if the article will be deleted nor I intend to engage endless discussions about the notability of the subject as it was in the previos afd. So, let's see what the rest of the community thinks about it. Cavarrone (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I ran across this as a battle in progress at wp:ani, and the article has been the subject of a long term editing and deletion battle, with one side's editing oriented towards getting the article deleted. Without getting too much in detail, all things considered, I have concerns that ~~this is a non-objective continuation of the battle, and also that~~ the article may be in a battered state at the moment, possibly with wp:notability-related material and references removed. I have not yet had time to analyze / review the 22 references to determine the amount of wp:notability-suitable coverage, but my first impression is that wp:notabiity may already be established within the article. Either way IMHO this article should be kept for a cooling down and recovery period. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commmenting - No offense to North8000 (he and I have talked on his user talk), but I do not think the current state of the article matters much. What matters is whether this guy passes some variety of WP:N. I searched for references on my own and reviewed those on this version of the article and old versions and do not think he passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG or any other variety of WP:N. I am not sure what weight to give a vote of an editor who admits to not having reviewed the references, yet votes keep to allow for a cooling down period. I understand why North800 feels this way, but I do not think it is relevant at AfD. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are pretty much limited to what I said, which does not include expertise on the topic, nor a thorough analysis / thorough knowledge of the references given. But IMHO in this case the state of the article IS relevant to any practical review, including any wp:notability relevant or wp:notability-indicating references or content that might have gotten knocked out during the warfare. And, without getting into details, I do have concerns that such is a possibility here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- FWIW, the completely pre-warfare version looks like it is this one: [27]. The version with the most bytes is this one, I think: [28]. I've already considered the references there and others. But even if the article is a single useless sentence, the person could still be notable, and before sending here to AfD an editor is supposed to look for references: WP:BEFORE. Flipside: an article could claim the person is the best ever at everything, but without references saying so the person does not pass WP:N. I accept that North8000 thinks we should look hard for references because some Reliable Sources might not be in the article. But if nobody finds references that meet a WP:N factor, noting how bad the article is kind of irrelevant, no? This essay kind of makes the point: WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One minor side note. IMHO the article content I think also can serve as a indicator of the likelihood of other sources existing. I'm semi-active at wp:afd and I often see where credible text in the article indicates significant RW notability and it's clear that the work on sources just hasn't been done in the article. I'm NOT asserting that such is the case here. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established for me. Mentions in several news sources, although not top tier ones, minor roles in a large number of films, group nomination for a significant award. Each one by itself might be argued against, but together, they point to an article. The Steve 09:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting - So do you think he passes WP:GNG? It seems others are not so sure. Or do you think he passes WP:ENT? If so, how? I am not sure somebody can pass WP:N unless they pass at least one of the actual criteria. I do agree that he sure does comes pretty close to passing a few (he has several significant roles, but in non-notable films; appeared in a few notable films, but in very minor roles; was one of over a hundred stunt performers in a film's ensemble that was nominated for a major award, but did not win; and has been mentioned in Reliable Sources, but only in passing, at most; has had indepth coverage, but not in WP:RS sources), but I do not understand how being close to passing WP:N for several reasons "together" makes a subject actually meet WP:N. Is there a "close but not quite on several factors equals passing" factor that I have missed? Hoppingalong (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for myself, its WP:ENT, because I consider several minor roles to be the equivalent of one major role. This is not actually in the guideline, (minor roles aren't mentioned at all) it is my own rule of thumb, and I have mentioned it before. I realized that someone could actually be famous for only minor roles. In any case, Douglas Tait has over 50 credited roles, some of them in very significant films. You also have to pick your own level for role "significance". With these in mind, he easily passes my estimation of WP:ENT. YMMV, naturally. The Steve 05:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 19:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Peace and Security Institute[edit]

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

Article, created by an apparent employee of the subject, describes an organization that fails the notability requirements of WP:GNG. While a variety of prominent people appear to have lent their name to the enterprise as "advisors", notability is not inherited and there is a marked scarcity of 3d party reliable sources discussing this organization or its work. JohnInDC (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Borderline case, benefit of the doubt. Of the references, two wp:notability-suitable ones have some small/medium coverage of them. Several others mention them. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep without prejudice This does look to be quite a borderline case, but I think the benefit of the doubt should go to keeping the article; perhaps closing without prejudice to re-nominating in a month or so for re-assessment? As North8000 says at least two of the sources are reliable to do show notability to an extent, and there the Institute is mentioned in others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Bicycles[edit]

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

Non-notable brand of bicycle from a non-notable company. Since it was created by a WP:SPA and it contained promotional material (since cleaned up) the article is essentially spam. It is giving one organisation a commercial advantage over others (an unfortunate artefact of WP:OTHERSTUFF). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing to indicate it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP. But there could be coverage in Bulgarian that might. I'd be willing to change my vote, if there is. Hoppingalong (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Bulgarian sources prove to be significant and reliable and have not spilled over into English language sources do they make the topic notable?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- That is a good question. WP:N requires Reliable Sources that pass WP:RS. WP:NOENG which is part of WP:V says that Reliable Sources can be non-Enlgish. And Wp:GNG says itself that sources "are not required to be in English." Although, I would be skeptical of a company passing WP:CORP or WP:GNG entirely because of references in one language other than English, yet having absolutely nothing in English, global economy and all. Either way, I do not think we have that case here. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There has been plenty of time and plenty of edits, but none of the provided sources even mentions the bike brand, not even the one in Bulgarian as far as I can tell with the automatic page translation provided by Google Chrome. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shama[edit]

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

Promotional biography of an apparently non-notable artist who doesn't seem to have notability for his work as a school principal either. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there is media coverage on him, but even according to his bio, its just that one mention. SalHamton (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is significant coverage in the New York Times. There is incidental coverage at http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-12-20/news/30540157_1_stephen-tsai-arnie-rosenbaum-francis-lewis. There is coverage at Columbia University for being selected to the Cahn Fellows Program at Teacher's College, Columbia. That is an award, and being from Columbia, looks prestigious. There is some coverage here (it is not clear if the source is an RS, but it is clearly not a blog or promotional in nature; has editorial oversight). There is a passing mention in NY Times. and a bit here. The coverage is largely about his being a school principal. The NY Times and Columbia coverage are both significant. The rest can't be called trivial since the context is the school of which he is the principal. Coverage is sufficient to meet WP:BASIC (non-trivial in multiple reliable, third-party, independent sources). Churn and change (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't find a lot of sourcing about his art, but I think there's enough depth of coverage for his work as an educator to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Walker (Battle of Britain pilot)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER....William 16:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every newspaper in England seems to have published his obituary for being the oldest surviving Battle of Britain pilot. WP:GNG trumps SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, following his death, a large number of detailed obituaries have been written about him and significant sections of news broadcasts/bulletins were devoted to him. While he may not satisfy WP:SOLDIER (which is skewed towards senior officers or decorated individuals) his death "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" thereby satisfying WP:GNG. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 09:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, he wasn't notable for his rank as a junior officer or achievements, which were no more than any other WWII RAF pilot. He has, however, had obituaries in almost every major British media outlet, and that makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - "oldest surviving" seems to make him just about notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We already have multiple articles about "oldest military veterans", he is also notable as a businessman. --Zerbey (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend et al. Passes WP:GNG etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Jimfbleak (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): unsourced biography of a living person). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barber (Cricketer)[edit]

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

Not notable, doesn't pass the cricket sports guidelines. Buggie111 (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing notable within this article. Although I found some coverage of him, I do not believe it is sufficient to keep this article. Eire102 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 19:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

980s in Denmark[edit]

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

It doesn't really mention anything, does it? MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - does it? What policy are you citing? None that I can see. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid AfD Nomination - You need to read the relevant AfD guidelines before making a nomination. The pages you have highlighted for deletion are under construction / in first stages of development. Olowe2011 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As an editing note, I wonder aloud rather it might not be better (and less controversial) to scrub all these decade-level pages and combine the info into something called 10th Century in Denmark or some such. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I suggest we discuss this set as a whole here, since this was the first one nominated. Does anyone know the formal process for that? I added some events to this one and to 950s in Denmark. Easy enough, which suggests a WP:BEFORE issue. Once they have been expanded a bit more and we get a sense for how large they are likely to become, we can perhaps consider a merge as suggested by Carrite. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certain to be enough notable things that happened in Denmark in a ten-year period to be listed here--at at the moment, enough are to justify the page. I wouldn't support making individual years in the early middle ages until we have filled in articles like this, & it is possible that the 10th century in a particular country may never reach that point. But decades certainly. WP is a structure and must be built. It doesn't hatch instantaneously. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well-sourced, and functional as an encyclopedia entry. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into 10th century in Denmark. It would be easier to maintain the articles if they were organised by century, not by decade.--xanchester (t) 07:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started 10th century in Denmark and put "merge to" notices on the decade pages. We are deciding here whether the title "980s in Denmark" etc. should be allowed to exist. I would say "yes, without doubt", and do not sense much disagreement. This could probably be snowballed. The second question is whether the title should lead to a stand-alone article or to a broader "10th century in Denmark". I favor the latter, but it is a question of organization and convenience rather than existence. We should wait until this set of AfD's is closed, then give the "merge to" discussion another week at least before making a decision on that. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All decades into 10th century in Denmark.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Splash - tk 19:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

970s in Denmark[edit]

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

Doesn't really say much about anything, does it? MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - does it? What policy are you citing? None that I can see. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incomplete does not equal delete. Buggie111 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve this incomplete article that simply needs expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into 10th century in Denmark, as per my rationale in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/980s in Denmark. This should have been a bulk nomination.--xanchester (t) 07:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

960s in Denmark[edit]

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

Doesn't say anything about anything, does it? MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - does it? What policy are you citing? None that I can see. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incomplete does not equal delete. Buggie111 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Knowing that "not much happened" can be beneficial.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certain to be enough notable things that happened in Denmark in a ten-year period to be listed here. I wouldn't support making individual years in the early middle ages until we have filled in articles like this, & it is possible that the 10th century in a particular country may never reach that point. But decades certainly. Of course things happened, it's just that we have not written the articles. WP is a structure and must be built. It doesn't hatch instantaneously. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this stub-class article that awaits expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

950s in Denmark[edit]

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

Doesn't say anything of import, does it? MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - does it? What policy are you citing? None that I can see. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incomplete does not equal delete. Buggie111 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certain to be enough notable things that happened in Denmark in a ten-year period to be listed here. I wouldn't support making individual years in the early middle ages until we have filled in articles like this, & it is possible that the 10th century in a particular country may never reach that point. But decades certainly. WP is a structure and must be built. It doesn't hatch instantaneously. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I'd merge into a 10th century in Denmark for starters, same with the other decades.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well-sourced article that awaits further expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hennessy Catholic College[edit]

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

It doesn't say anything bout anything really MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a reason for deletion. Article might not meet notability requirements, but "It's short" isn't a proper reason. Buggie111 (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Verified secondary schools are typically allowed to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Note that this "college" actually teaches students in years 7-12. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE No mention of this school in any reliable sources to be found. This is a small high school with no notability. The article referenced on the "notability of schools" above is an essay and not a Wikipedia Guideline. There is no information that could be included other than to say that the school exists.OfficeGirl (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented. Consensus is to default to keep secondary and higher education pieces. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. It's not an essay, its a report on clearly established precedents that have been observed for a long time, and many, many PEREN discussions and even orchestrated AfD campaigns have failed to get it changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree on the high schools issue if there were at least ONE WP:RS reliable source. I am just now noticing how new this article is. It would be good for one of the proponents of the article to find SOMETHING as a reliable source, not just the school's own website.OfficeGirl (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The school's website verifies it exists. For a secondary school, that's sufficient for an article to exist on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All verified secondary schools are generally presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Incomplete article is not a good rationale for deletion as article content may not reflect availability of sources. --LauraHale (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no sound reason for deletion has been adduced. Senior high school and no reason why it can't meet WP:ORG. The solution is to expand not delete. TerriersFan (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I hope no one objects to my closing this, after the nomination was kindly withdrawn. Who said that AfD was not for article improvement? With thanks to all participants, including Guillaume2303. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Africa[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. There are several sources, however, none of them is independent and discussing the journal in-depth, other than an in-passing mention. Not listed in any selective databases, no independent third-party sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree, for now: there is little independent indication that this journal is notable, pace Rhoda Reddock's claims cited in footnote 7. The strongest evidence of notability comes in this critique of the journal, but that's not much (yet). Drmies (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I'm changing my mind here. I found, using JSTOR, a couple of mentions of the journal which I've added to the article. The "News and Views" bit from Feminist Studies is a page and a half of discussion of the journal, and while it's a bit congratulatory it is published in a notable publication. Moreover, some articles by Patricia McFadden which were published in the journal are cited in a couple of places, and I've found a half dozen other citations of articles published in the journal and of themed issues. Guillaume, I'm changing to keep--begging your pardon. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies research and my own using my scholarly access. I actually used a copy of Feminist Africa in some research a few months back! SarahStierch (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass GNG per Drmies' research. There's also a good chance it passes the "historic purpose" criteria of WP:NJournals due to being the first African gender studies journal from Africa. Kaldari (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no--that would be Agenda (feminist journal), for which I just wrote a (very stubby) stub. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced, clearly notable, not to mention encyclopedic and educational. — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Drmies for finding adequate sources. I cannot read those in JSTOR, but knowing the other editors here, I have no doubt that these say what is being claimed. Nomination withdrawn. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eboule Bille Samuel[edit]

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

Appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The claim that he has played senior football for Cameroon is not supported by NFT or FIFA. Giant Snowman 09:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and give a serious cleanup to. Player doesn't fail WP:NFOOTBALL. He played for 4/5 seasons in the WP:FPL-listed South African National First Division, as confirmed by Soccernet for his first two clubs. Unfortunately they stop giving player stats for that league after 2008, but online reports confirm his continuing to play for and sometime captain FC Cape Town until 2011, e.g. IOL April 2009, Kickoff April 2010, Kickoff Jan 2011. I find no evidence of his playing for Cameroon. Neither camfoot.com nor fecafootonline.com mention him in connection with international football.
Suggest moving him to Samuel Eboule or Samuel Eboule Bille, i.e surname last, and any passing admin might want to delete the infobox image, which has the name of a photo agency slapped across its middle. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article wasn't helped by the bad formatting making it looks like all the clubs he'd played for were redlinks. I've corrected that, least. Morwen - Talk 14:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the copyvio pic, and I'm more than happy to withdraw this AfD following excellent research (as ever!) by Struway2 which shows this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The name issue (further research of my own - I've also seen 'Eboule Bille' and 'Samuel Bille') is a matter for the talk page. Giant Snowman 14:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's played several seasons in the South African National First Division - I added some references to the article which support this. Jogurney (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Herscu[edit]

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

Weak referencing and dubious notability. Kurepalaku (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal citation at Google Scholar, so fails WP:ACADEMIC. Absolutely nothing found at Google News Archive, so fails WP:GNG. Appears to be simply a promotional article about a non-notable alternative medical practitioner. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expressed concerns five years ago about the notability of Herscu. No independent sources have been presented. The fact that an individual has published prolifically in low-impact journals does not make them notable; notability comes from reliably-sourced publications about the person. I can't find anything that meets this standard. Skinwalker (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very very long comment by Paul Herscu

Hello, My name is Paul Herscu. I have not really done this before in Wikipedia and am not sure if I am in the right place, so apologize ahead of time. After reading some background on Wikipedia process, and seeing as this is about a page of my work I thought I would write in. I wanted to provide more information for you, so that you can more accurately assess this page. And I am responding specifically to the comments above, but could add more if you need it. I was made aware that the page had a problem with the references. I then went to that page, and saw that there were requests for citations, explanations, etc. Since I had not put up this page in the first place, I had to work out the mechanics of how to do that. As a result, I have placed/made the following changes to the page:

First, I removed some words, such as 'extensive' and instead added a list of countries where I had taught, all verifiable by anyone searching the web. However, this now presents the page with a list of countries, which makes it look odd, but at least it answers that point.

Second, I added half a dozen references. I can see from the above comments that someone thought these references are weak and are in low impact journals. However, that is not accurate. Most are what is called a 1st tier journal. For example, Critical Care Medicine is the number one journal for emergency room physicians around the world. this is easily confirmed by anyone in medicine.^[1]^[2] For example, in the Critical Care Medicine article referenced, the editors took the opportunity to highlight this article are have a long editorial on its' level of importance to saving lives in the ED^[3]. The other journals are of a similar quality, which explains why the articles are referenced by others. There is some misconception in the above criticism about my wok and alternative medicine. However, most of what is on the page has little to do with that part of my work. Please note that this part of my work has nothing to do with complementary alternative medicine, but is read/practiced by ED physicians around the world, and diminishing the premier journal that all emergency room physicians read is, well...not actually correct. That article has begun a wave of new research in a branch of inflammatory life threatening pathways, and is therefore being referenced more and more. There are currently numerous trials occurring in animals models at a variety of institutions testing this single hypothesis. ^[4]^[5]. However, we were the first to actually prove it in humans, and as result have worked through regulatory national agencies. Again, this is not alternative medicine, and any close read of this work will show the relevance within medicine. (I am sorry, but I do not know your medical knowledge.) Likewise, I posted another reference that focused on hospital admissions of a particular disease.^[6] this was published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. This journal is the top journal of the topic of Allergy, Asthma and immunology, and is published by the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology, the experts in the field. Characterizing this journal as a low impact journal is...well, you see my point I think. I added a third article which is a review article going in depth into a side effect of a medication, which was published in Clinical and Experimental Allergy, a top tier journal recognized around the world on the topic, and read by most allergists^[7]. Note also that these article are coauthored by the leaders in each of their specific fields of medicine. Note also that these articles then become referenced in other articles published in tier 1 journals, as for example, ^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12], as well as blogs between physicians, as in^[13]. Note that these are just some references which are easy to find in any of the top medical journals. Since these are easy to verify, I hope I demonstrated that just with 1 or 2 articles, that were placed in the top journals in medicine are regularly referenced. I can add many more references here, but I hope I illustrated that some of the issues mentioned above are actually not correct.

Third, I have tried to create a balance between my various interests. Simply, my main interest is to help physicians find the right treatment, for each person, the first time out. I do that in the Complementary Alternative Medicine-CAM(referenced now), but I also do that in drug discovery pharmaceutical world (referenced now), and in clinical trials for a variety of diseases in some of the major hospitals around the country (referenced now). I know, on the face of it, it may seem that my interests are in conflict, as CAM might seem different from drugs, pharmaceuticals and hospitals, but if you read through my biography, you see that the main idea is the same, create systems that help clinicians find the appropriate therapy for their patients. If I had created this page, I probably would have placed that balance as it should be. However, it looks like this page was first created with a bias towards the CAM side of the equation. And if I read the string of comments here correctly, it looks like some people do not like CAM. Regarding CAM, I had already added references to a few articles. One was how to conduct good clinical trials in Influenza, if you are trying to test something in CAM.^[14]. While one may not understand or be biased by CAM approaches to medicine, the journal this article was published in is recognized as the top journal in CAM scientific approaches. Further, as can be seen by the authors and reviewers, some are in change of vaccinations in European countries. So from the authors and editors of this work, in this peer reviewed journal, I think they would find it incorrect to characterize the journal is a second rate one. Likewise, I had a paper on how to conduct a proper clinical trial in homeopathy in the only peer reviewed journal on the topic that is recognized in every university library, and in Pubmed and NIH.^[15] Likewise, when you look at the book reviews published about my books and interviews about me in peer reviewed journals that are recognized as leaders in their field, you find that I actually do qualify under the category: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" When you look at the page titled Wikipedia Talk Page, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, one of the main points they make is the following: "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." In other words, if a community of people in the CAM world have demonstrated the above premise, then even if you may not like CAM, it is you expressing opinion, rather than the facts on the ground. I can add more detail here if you need it, but I am trying to keep this short. Please let me know if you need more information.

My point is the following. I practice CAM in my office and write about it, with the point of reference of creating good science there and demonstrating efficacy or failure. I have written and taught on this and this is commonly attributed to my work by others around the world. However, I also work on non CAM endeavors, and in many respects spend much more time there. The page references a great deal on medicine, as practiced in hospitals, by specialists of the highest caliber. There too, I try to help them do better science, and have published a lot there, taught there, and there are clnical trials that are based on my work going on at this time, which I had also referenced, though I think it may be that on a quick read, one may have missed that this is hospital work, and thought it was CAM work. For example, as I referenced in the page, I have written on how to conduct drug trials in a more refined fashion, and that paper was again coauthored by one of the leaders in that field, ^[16] and published in a leading pharmaceutical peer reviewed journal that every executive in the industry reads. The point of that article was how help trials be more effective and lead to better outcomes, and as a result of that work it too gets referenced by other authors, as in ^[17]

What I have tried to do in the above is the following: address the issues mentioned above, namely that all I am is a "non-notable alternative medical practitioner". First, by the definitions in Wikipedia that I quoted, that does not apply in terms of notables, as my work is easily recognized in my community, but also that my work is much more than CAM, and that the majority of it is on some other topic, that seems to have been missed. That there are no papers or if they are they are minor papers in minor journals, which is blatently not the case. Look at the coauthors of the papers and you see them working in top hospitals and research centes, such as Harvard. They are in lead tier 1 journals and referenced. Regarding notables, I don't know if searching my name in Google matters as another bit of information, but here were over 30,000 hits, a minor point, but I am not sure how you make decisions, given the fact that, well, there are actual facts on the ground that differ greatly from your points above.

However, in light of the references and other changes that I added that create more balance in the page and may help you get a better sense of the overall work, I request that this request for deletion be withdrawn, and the topic closed, as the points raised were actually not fully representative of what is actually presented on the page or the verifyable truth. Please feel free to ask for any other information or details. As you can see, when I get interested in something, I dive right in. And at this moment I am interested on how this process actually works, in real life. Thank you, Sincerely, Paul Herscu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.203.62 (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/pages/aboutthejournal.aspx
^ http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/pages/default.aspx
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=The20complement20system20as20another20target20for20inhibition20in20septic20patients3A20Should20we20implement20this20treatment20or20wait20for20the20evidence3F*20Lesur2C20Olivier3B20Hermans2C20Cedric20Critical20Care20Medicine.2040(3)3A988-9902C20March202012
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22903111
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21345278
^ Bluestein HM, Hoover TA, Banerji AS, Camargo CA Jr, Reshef A, Herscu P. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2009 Dec;103(6):502-7. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced angioedema in a community hospital emergency department.
^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Andrew20201120ACEI20associated20angioedema20a20case20study20and20review.pdf
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Byrd20201120DPP-420inhibitors20and 20angioedema20a20cause20for20concern3F.pdf
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21978477
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kampitak20201020ANGIOEDEMA20ASSOCIATED20WITH20DUTASTERIDE20THERAPY.pdf
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21131705
^ http://allergynotes.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-to-differentiate-ace-inhibitor.html
^ Kirkby R, Calabrese C, Kaltman L, Monnier J, Herscu P. Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, April 2009. Methodological Considerations for Controlled Influenza Treatment Studies in CAM.
^ ^ Kirkby R, Herscu P. Homeopathy. 2010 Jan;99(1):69-75. Review. Homeopathic trial design in influenza treatment.
^ Herscu P, Hoover TA, Randolph AG. Drug Discov Today. 2009 Dec;14(23-24):1143-9. Epub 2009 Oct 21. Clinical prediction rules: new opportunities for pharma.
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Rice20201120The20institutional20review20board20is20an20impediment20to20human20research.pdf

Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Merely having publications isn't enough to meet Academic, the citation counts aren't exceptionally high. WP:BIO is also not met. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Wilson (fighter)[edit]

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

Unexplained contested PROD. Original PROD was on notability grounds. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — Fighter has fought twice for K-1, the biggest Kickboxing promotion in the world.
LlamaAl (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fought on the undercards for K-1. He wasn't even in the qualifying event for the qualifying event for the final event. Being signed for K-1 doesn't show notability any more than a baseball player signing with a major league team is notable until he gets to the top rung. Mdtemp (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The only coverage of this individual are in lists of upcoming fight cards or results. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of him. He may become a notable kickboxer, but with only 2 bouts on his record I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — Fighter has fought twice for K-1, the biggest Kickboxing promotion in the world, and will fight this month for Superkombat, the biggest Kickboxing promotion in Europe.
Vermount564 (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What events he has appeared in are not relevant, coverage is, and this fighter lacks the significant coverage needed to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 00:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Icy Spicy Leoncie[edit]

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

Article is almost unambiguously non-noteworthy, largely edited by Leoncie herself. Fraxtil (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really, really had to do some scavenging for sources, but it looks like she has received just enough coverage to where I would say she just barely passes general notability guidelines. She seems to be predominantly known under the name "Leoncie", so I recommend moving this to Leoncie and having the new name as a redirect. I think this might be what she's officially calling herself now but I haven't really found any official RS that call her by this name. Her social media sites use this, but I know that in the past we've had much more high profile artists such as Snoop Dogg change their stage names while their Wikipedia pages stay at the name they're predominantly known by. So per precedent, I suggest moving this to Leoncie if it's kept.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look, the more I'm finding stuff that seems to kind of suggest she's sort of famous for being famous, more along the lines of Rebecca Black than Snooki. All I know is that after everything I've read, I've got to watch her videos now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. passes WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely passes WP:GNG. Buggie111 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it just passes WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District[edit]

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

Two years ago, I attempted to AfD this article. My mistake was lumping this AfD with a couple dozen elementary and middle schools, mostly from Arizona. The discussion ended "no consensus", and a renomination of this article was suggested at the time. I never followed through.

I've returned to this article after two years to renominate it for deletion. The reason is simple: it offers no exciting new content over the individual school articles, and this article can and has fallen out of date on information such as principals. Until July, the conference alignments were out of date; I've updated the enrollments, but that's maintenance work. Not only that, but the parroting of lead sections of articles sounds awkward and overly formal, especially since the writer of these articles has phrased the lead sections in the exact same format. In addition, it offers no navigational improvements over Template:Peoria Unified School District. Raymie (t • c) 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As important public institutions covering a large area, school districts typically have the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N. Additionally, school districts are, per AFD Common Outcomes, the merger targets for articles about Middle Schools and Elementary Schools. Not liking the "overly formal" and "awkward" phrasing of an article is a reason to edit it, not to delete it. Edison (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an article about the school district at Peoria Unified School District and an article for each of the seven high schools. The actual articles for the high schools feature almost exact versions of the same paragraphs in this article. Raymie (t • c) 03:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing a fork there... Fundamentally different content. Obviously, in the event that the nays have it, this would be a suitable merge target — but that would be a big mess, I think. We should leave well enough alone. Carrite (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Suitably encyclopedic list. Useful navigational aid. Carrite (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All lists typically duplicate information present in a bunch of articles, but organize that information differently, allowing easy access to some kind of navigation of the data. In this list, there is a list of high schools and their feeder schools all in one place; a reader does not have to wade through multiple articles to cull that information. The list has well-defined scope, notable entries, and general utility. If you think the sections on the high schools are needlessly verbose, edit them. Churn and change (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Proper list, doesn't matter the exact nityy-gritty way it's organized. Buggie111 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good overview that is appropriate for the encyclopedia, though the article could use a better name. "List of ..." doesn't really do it justice. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are problems with the maintenance of this (and I'd agree that basically just repeating the lede for a bunch of articles is a bit odd for a list article), should this not just be trimmed and tablefied? Morwen - Talk 14:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Melanson[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Mayumashu (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete Although it technically fails WP:NHOCKEY, he was 8 games away from the 100 game notability mark and, if football means anything, a 2nd round pick has some notability attached to it. Buggie111 (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those games he played were amateur games. He had to play 100 pro games to meet WP:NHOCKEY. And as far as draft picks go, only the first round helps you meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the first round draft pick part, but there surely must have been a lot of 2nds who made to the all-Star Game or Hall of Fame. Anyways, now that you clairify the type of game he played, I switch to delete. Buggie111 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Didn't play professionally, wasn't a first rounder pick, wasn't a preeminent star at the junior level, no evidence of notability proferred. Highly unlikely he could meet the GNG in his own right. Ravenswing 10:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowed sunlight[edit]

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

Incomplete nomination originally started by User:DGG. Contested prod. I also vote delete. Raymie (t • c) 02:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing on the internet to show that this particular term is frequently used or documented in this context. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for things made up one day. This is pretty much just a neologism. I see one or two places using it in a similar context, but not exactly in the way it's phrased here.Tokyogirl79 (talk)
Delete. A phrase used occasionally in blogs in the sense meant in the article, and at times in a more literal sense (piped-in sunlight). No reliable sources have picked up on the first usage, nor is the second usage thought of as a concept in its own right. The phrase is not covered as an entity in independent, reliable sources and hence notability does not exist. Churn and change (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources whatsoever to show this idea is even in use. Might as well be made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 17:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--xanchester (t) 22:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO.--E8 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough documentation to prove the notability of the usage of this term. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kitarō discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque Ingenieux[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this album is notable. It is essentially just a track list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ancient Journey. Stefan2 (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass the notability standards, nothing I could find on the web that could help it to do so. Buggie111 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge to the already-existing Kitarō discography instead -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kitarō discography. Not notable enough to have an article of its own. A mention in the discography article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kitarō discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenku (Kitarō album)[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this album is notable. It is essentially just a track list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ancient Journey. Stefan2 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass the notability standards, nothing I could find on the web that could help it to do so. Buggie111 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge to the already-existing Kitarō discography instead, as per all the others as well. And yes, I am volunteering to do this :) NB: it looks like some of these articles are going through AFD, while many more of them were proposed for deletion. I've gone ahead and removed several of the prod tags in preparation for redirecting them. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kitarō discography. Not notable enough to have an article of its own. A mention in the discography article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kitarō discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toward the West[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this album is notable. It is essentially just a track list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ancient Journey. Stefan2 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability: no evidence of awards, no evidence of charting, no evidence of full-length professional reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass the notability standards, nothing I could find on the web that could help it to do so. Buggie111 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge to the already-existing Kitarō discography instead, as per all the others as well. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kitarō discography. Not notable enough to have an article of its own. A mention in the discography article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kitarō discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ki (Kitaro album)[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this album is notable. It is essentially just a track list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ancient Journey. Stefan2 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass the notability standards, nothing I could find on the web that could help it to do so. Buggie111 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kitarō_discography#Studio_albums - Google News provided nothing so it's likely that any significant sources or chart records are Japanese. Google Books found nothing substantial aside from CD listings. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kitarō discography. Not notable enough to have an article of its own. A mention in the discography article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn; non-admin closure). St Anselm (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invasions of the British Isles[edit]

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

This might seem a strange candidate for deletion, as it appears at first glance notable (and I, the nominator, was its original creator). However, I am wondering if this article is unsustainable and unnecessary in its present form. It, as a topic, does not appear to have been covered explicitly by the sources mentioned; it could be deleted, with the various "notable" sections turned into separate articles. For example, "Invasions during the Hundred Years War" would be better as a standalone than as a part of this article. dci | TALK 01:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that the sources cover the topic explicitly, as evidenced by some of their titles. The topic is notable due to the dearth of quotes about "defending the island" and "never invaded". Deleting and taking the parts of the article to make more smaller ones seems like a bad idea to me because of the possible ambiguity (i.e. Invasions during the Hundred Years War and Hundred Years War, wasn't the whole war simply invasions and counterattacks/counterinvasions?). Really hope I'm making sense here. Buggie111 (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get your point. Mine, however, is this: "Invasions of the United States" would be notable as the US, as a country, has always been an entity that can be invaded with some, if you will, consistency. As can some place like France, which has existed as a concept for 1,200 years (or something like that). But the "British Isles" only started being thought of as a single concept a few centuries ago, with invasions before then being directed at individual islands. For example, take another European country, Spain. Invasions from Aragon into Granada or from Cordoba into Valencia, during the fragmentation of the Reconquista, wouldn't be much like the French invasion of Spain, a distinct concept as a nation-state, under Napoleon. I disagreed with the view I present here when I created the initial version of the article, but seeing what it's become, I can't help but hope for a different way to present the info. Sorry for the excessive length of the post! dci | TALK 02:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I, in turn, see what you mean. But as I stated above, the boatload of "Britain has never been invaded" blah blah blah really helps the notability situation here. If this was a country like, umm, the Philippines, then I'd agree with you. But I stand by my original beliefs. Buggie111 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suppose you're correct about the "never-invaded" fallacies, but I still stand by my own arguments above. dci | TALK 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. See Invasion: From the Armada to Hitler, 1588-1945, for example. Warden (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Divide. The role of invasions in shaping the British Isles can't be doubted, and the idea that "England hasn't been invaded since 1066" is a popular myth, so the notability angle is covered, as has already been said. We are also dealing with a geographical entity, not a political one, for the whole of the time period currently covered, so arguments based on national boundaries are weakened. However, the article does struggle in terms of its current divisions in that some are stronger than others - there is little in the Irish section for example, or the Welsh. These might be strengthened as stand alone articles i.e. by dividing the topic into invasions of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. This does lose some overview e.g. of the Viking invasions but may help national editors to get involved in their own sections, if they are put off by the concept of "British Isles". Monstrelet (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but radically prune, listify or otherwise improve as article seems both confused about its remit and somewhat partial. The main problems are: firstly the inclusion of events that are not "Invasions of the British Isles" but rather wars between parties within the British isles e.g. Battle of Flodden, Wars of the Roses, Rough Wooing and secondly the absence of events such as the Viking invasions of Ireland and a few smaller ones like the Battle of Glen Shiel. Those in the first category should either be removed, or alternatively the lead should be amended and the name of the article changed. Less crucially or surprisingly the text is somewhat anglocentric e.g. the Roman section, which fails to even mention Caledonia. Ben MacDui 09:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the above should be better debated on the article's talk page. For example, invasions within as opposed to from outside the British Isles is a definitional issue. As to Glen Shiel, entirely correct but the article currently only runs up to 1560, so there are a pile of other examples to add if the article were to be extended. Also agree on the Anglocentricity, though feel that applies more acutely to the Welsh and Irish elementMonstrelet (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand nom's doubts, but the article can be kept as a list - it has well-defined criteria, excellent sources, and is certainly of interest. If nom would like to rename it "List of invasions of the British Isles" (or, ...of Britain, not the same thing, it'd be a different list) which nom might feel more comfortable with, then I'd support that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and encyclopedic subject covered by multiple secondary sources. The article may need to be cleaned up, as per Ben MacDui's suggestions.--xanchester (t) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will reluctantly withdraw my deletion nomination. I understand that most of those who supported keeping the article have valid concerns that it is too notable or encyclopedic to qualify for deletion. However, I really don't think that it, especially as it currently stands, is helpful or necessary for a reader. I will post my further opinions on the article talk page. Again, I am not endorsing keeping the article, but the consensus is definitely not to delete. dci | TALK 22:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey M. Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable dance instructor and obscure advocate of fringe theories. Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nauseating puff and fluff tone, but this does seem to be a recognized leader in the anti-Genetically Modified Foods movement. See, for example, THIS from the Chico News Review... Carrite (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jeffrey Smith is referenced and his publications cited (fringe they may be) on multiple other Wikipedia pages on the issues of GMOs, Natural Law Party Politics and the Maharishi movement. While his views and theories may be fringe, he's frequently referenced in mainstream news media for his activism and should meet the basic criteria for inclusion. CinagroErunam (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you're the creator, it would be helpful to the debate if you could possibly provide a couple links to references in the mainstream news media, either about the subject or quoting him as an expert. Best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples/citations; I'll add more if needed (a quick search for "Jeffrey Smith" + GMOs in any news archive database will generate thousands of results) - CinagroErunam (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Smith appearance on Dr. Oz Show, October 2012.
Jeffrey Smith appearance on dr. Oz. Show, December 2010.
Jeffrey Smith bio - claims he's been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC News, etc... Biography also claims Smith has "counseled world leaders from every continent, influenced the first state laws regulating GMOs.."
Ventura County Star (CA) recently reported on events calling Smith and educator noting, "Jeffrey Smith is the Nation's foremost expert on GMO's..."
CBS News referenced Jeffrey Smith in April 2012 noting, "Smith told CBS News' Roland Marconi that there are currently nine genetically modified food crops with corn and soybean along with their derivatives being the most present...."

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first several don't impress, but the CBS cite does seems to add proof to the notion that this is a recognized expert on Genetically Modified Organisms and thus a reasonable subject for encyclopedic biography. That's my sense anyway. I'm not worked up about this issue, but whether it is fringe hysteria or legitimate science is secondary to the question of the subject's perceived expertise, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another sample listing of Jeffrey Smith citations from a Factiva News Search (thank you public library) of "major sources" reveals the following references to Jeffrey M. Smith in news reports from around the Globe showing, while his views and background may be "fringe hysteria", that he's a person of influence causing foreign governments to make regulatory and policy changes about agriculture production and food and getting regularly referenced in mainstream media - even being called by Reuters "a scientist" in their reporting: CinagroErunam (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles, collapsed for readability. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The future of food and how we eat; Author searches for compromise between meals in pill form and romanticizing food problems, by Christine Sismondo Special to the Star, 22 August 2012, The Toronto Star "No doubt this will raise the hackles of those in the anti-GMO camp, such as best-selling anti-GMO author Jeffrey Smith..."

U.S. activist circles globe to fight biotech crops, By Carey Gillam, 7 March 2008, Reuters, "Jeffrey Smith is a man on a mission. Each day, ever day for the last 12 years, the 49-year-old Smith has made it his personal calling to travel the world preaching against genetically modified crops..."

Genetically modified foods subject of speech \ NIAGARA COLLEGE, 24 April 2012, Niagara Falls Review, 2012 Sun Media Corporation: "The impact genetically modified foods can have on our health and the environment will be the topic of discussion at Niagara College on Tuesday evening. Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating, and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, will be at Niagara College's Niagara-on-the-Lake campus to talk about genetically modified foods and how we can stop the genetic engineering of the food supply. Smith is an internationally renowned speaker who has lectured in 30 countries and been quoted by world leaders and hundreds of media outlets...."

U.S. activist lauds local group's efforts to advocate organic living, (By Worthy Shen and Kendra Lin), 9 April 2012, Central News Agency English News (CHINA), CNAENG, Taipei, April 9 (CNA) American Jeffrey Smith, author of the book "Seeds of Deception," praised a local foundation that promotes organic living during a visit to Yilan County Monday. Smith, who opposes genetically modified crops and travels around the world to advocate organic farming, met with former Premier Yu Shyi-kun during a visit to the Youngsun Culture and Education Foundation the politician founded in 1990...

The Shocking Reality About GMOs [analysis], by Dave Opiyo, 12 July 2011, All Africa, "...Jeffrey Smith, who describes himself as a "consumer advocate promoting healthier, non-GMO choices", argued..."

'Seeds of Deception' author to appear in Greenwich, Fairfield, By Christina Hennessy, Connecticut Post, Bridgeport, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 20 April 2011, "...April 20--It had already been a busy day for Jeffrey Smith and it wasn't even 11 a.m. This best-selling author had just come from a visit to a school, was about to begin a newspaper interview and in about a half-hour he would be visited by a film crew. Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, was in Colorado as part of the No GMO Week, April 12 to 17..."

As more consumers become concerned by genetically modified foods, they find they're everywhere, By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press, 25 February 2011, "..."We're seeing a level of reaction that is unprecedented," says Jeffrey Smith, an activist who has fought the expansion of genetically engineered foods since they were first introduced 15 years ago and written two books on the subject. "I personally think we are going to hit the tipping point of consumer rejection very soon...."

Scientist warns on safety of Monsanto's Roundup, 24 February 2011, Reuters News, "...While the evidence is considered preliminary, the potential damage to humans and animals is severe," said Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology..."

Moratorium on GM crops sought, by Special Correspondent, 5 February 2011, The Hindu, "...The declaration was released at a media conference addressed by Jeffrey Smith, author of the popular book, “Genetic Roullette”, Vijayan former chairman of the Kerala Biodiversity Board and P. V. Satheesh, national convenor, Southern Action on Genetic Engineering (SAGE), which organised the round table..."

For foodies and film buffs; SoFab adds a movie series to its annual symposium's menu, by Mike Scott, 12 September 2012, The Times-Picayune, "... The full Film Feast lineup: "Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives" (2012, 1 hour 25 minutes, world premiere) -- Jeffrey M. Smith directs a film attempting to link Americans' declining health with the use of genetically modified organisms in food. Screens Thursday after "Shellshocked."

‘Anti-GMO campaign gaining ground in US', by KV Kurmanath, 7 February 2011, Business Line (The Hindu), "...Mr Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of The Institute for Responsible Technology, shot to limelight with his books ‘Seeds of Deception' and Genetic Roulette, has said activists have set up Non GMO action groups in 44 States in the United States to spread the word about health risks GM foods brought in. “The Non GMO Tipping Point Network takes up campaign that ultimately forces companies to withdraw GMOs from their products. The movement has grown very strong in the US. Seventy-five per cent of all milk and yoghurt produced in the country was from cows that were not injected with bovine growth hormone. About 100 dairies have stopped using this,” he said..."

Institute for Responsible Technology; Candidate Support Expected to Boost Non-GMO Brands, 6 February 2008, Biotech Week, "...According to leading health management resource, the Institute for Responsible Technology www.responsibletechnology.org [29] consumers have no idea they are consuming flawed, genetically modified foods, and that is unfair. In late November, after reviewing the latest data about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as "biotech foods", all leading democratic presidential candidates agreed to fast track the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Non-GMO brands are expected to benefit (see also Institute for Responsible Technology). "Now consumers will have the information they need to make non-GMO buying choices," explains Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute and Director of the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America...."

Global GMO crops grow with political will-ISAAA, By Carey Gillam, 11 February 2009, Reuters, "...One leading biotech crop critic, Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology, said the fact that 95 percent of genetically modified crops are concentrated in just six countries shows continued wide global distrust of the technology..."

Author disputes safety of nonorganic food Activist says genetic modification is dangerous to health, Victoria Pierce Daily Herald Correspondent, 3 January 2004, Chicago Daily Herald, "...Jeffrey M. Smith isn't so sure. The activist and author of "Seeds of Deception" will be in Naperville and Bloomingdale next week to discuss his concerns about the dangers of biotechnology, industry influence and the U.S. government's decision not to label the new foods..."

Greens to host author attacked by liberals; GM: Visitor quiet about links with Maharishi cult, by Simon Collins science reporter, 6 February 2004, New Zealand Herald, "...Green MP Sue Kedgley has agreed to host a public meeting for a visiting American author who is under attack for not disclosing his links with the transcendental meditation movement. Jeffrey M. Smith, whose book Seeds of Deception has been republished in New Zealand by Green Party candidate Craig Potton, is described in the book as having worked on genetically modified foods for ``nonprofit and political groups..."

Rattling the food chain, Michael Corkill, 28 February 2004, The Courier-Mail, "...n Seeds of Deception, US author Jeffrey M. Smith gives anecdotal evidence of similar scenarios involving GM crops and pigs, cows, squirrels, elk, deer and rats..."

Good Enough To Eat? I Doubt It, Reviewed By John Newton, 3 April 2004, The Sydney Morning Herald, "... Seeds Of Deception By Jeffrey M. Smith Scribe, 292 pp, $30 Five days before Christmas, a short item appeared in the Herald, headlined "Canola crop approved". It reported that this new "genetically altered" (a euphemism for genetically engineered or genetically modified) crop had been approved for commercial use, and that "its advocates" said it would boost yields by up to 40 per cent..."

Farmers told to take up battling against anti-biotech groups, By Harry Cline Farm Press Editorial Staff, 2 October 2004, Western Farm Press, "...For example, one of the cornerstones of the California movement is a book called Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith, a member of the Natural Law Party, a Fairfield, Iowa, based transcendental meditation organization. Roush said the book is quoted at virtually all anti-biotech gatherings in the state..."

Polish Gov't Wants Ban on GMOs in EU, kcjw, 16 October 2007, Polish News Bulletin, "...The conference organisers invited Jeffrey M. Smith, director of the Institute for Responsible Technologies, who in his book presents evidence for the harmfulness of GMOs, including poisoning and allergic reactions..."

GM foods a health risk, says author, CLARE PEDDIE, SCIENCE REPORTER, 17 November 2007, The Advertiser (Adelaide, Australia), "...EATING genetically modified food is a health risk, says American author Jeffrey M. Smith. Mr Smith was in Adelaide this week to promote his latest book before a review early next year of the state's ban on growing GM crops..."

There's abundant evidence to warn people against GE crops, 28 November 2007, The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), "... Announcements in Victoria and NSW that genetically engineered (GE) crops will be allowed threaten more than just the income of Australia's farmers and food companies. There is irrefutable evidence that GE foods are unsafe to eat... Jeffrey M. Smith..."

Camping with 500 top chefs; Culinary stars to gather to share their knowledge, Pamela Cuthbert Special to the Star, 6 August 2008, The Toronto Star, "...Robert Clarke of C Restaurant in Vancouver will discuss aquaculture and sustainability; author Jeffrey M. Smith will speak on genetically modified food; Toronto chef and sommelier Andrew Laliberte will consider the future of Canadian wine, and so on..."

Groups discuss food security for the 21st century and beyond, Indian Country Today, Oneida, N.Y., McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 16 September 2009, Sante Fe Indian Country Today, "...Keynote speakers include author Jeffrey M. Smith and youth activist Erica Fernandez. Smith is a best-selling author and leading spokesperson on the health dangers of Genetically Modified Organisms. He first captured the public's attention in 2003 with his books "Seeds of Deception" and "Genetic Roulette."..."

When every mouthful is a health risk, by LATHA JISHNU, 24 September 2009, Business Standard (India), "...Jeffrey M Smith, a former consultant to industry, is the director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. The institute works with well-known scientists to educate the public about the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and is in the forefront of the campaign for healthier eating in America. For over a decade he has been writing extensively about the inherent risks of GM foods and his first book, Seeds of Deception, which became a bestseller, made Smith one of the best-known faces of the global anti-GMO movement..."

Activists hope CM would block Bt brinjal cultivation, 25 January 2010, New Indian Express, "... The team presented the book titled Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey M Smith, which exploded the myth that GM crops were safe. Dr G Sivaraman, who was part of the delegation, told Express that Bt brinjal would cause “irreversible biological interventions in the long run”.

@CinagroE... - can you provide links supporting the claim that Jeffrey Smith featured in the New York Times, Washington Post or BBC News? Or if not dates, times, quotes etc. Reliable sources like this in the article would further support notability. Kooky2 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Kooky2 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A closer look at the sources in the article reveals that they don't really establish notability as much as would be expected. Many of them deal with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi movement and its practices or reference self published or primary books. I only found two that are true secondary sources that satisfy the WP:GNG. I only looked at the ones I could access online and could not access all of the books or journals completely (although I am confident from looking at what I could access that any mention of Smith would be trivial or non-existent).

No mention of Smith [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] plus all the books listed under reference 33
Self Published [44][45][46][47]
Primary [48]
Unreliable in terms of establishing notability [49][50][51][52][53]
Secondary sources [54] [55]

One of the two secondary sources include an interview on The Dr. Oz Show ,which I am unfamiliar with (seems like a talk show so not great in my eyes). The Reuters source is the best, but I am not convinced that is enough to justify an article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note the multitude of sources listed in this discussion, but not in the article. However I would be more convinced if there were sources similar to the Reuters one, where he is the subject or a major focus of the article and it is a relatively major newspaper. I would rather have a few good ones to look a than a list seemingly copied from a search engine, it would only need a few of those to change my mind. AIRcorn (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn - I agree that by many definitions and citations included that this person has very fringe beliefs; however, his notability and influence are due to the fact that he's referenced and cited as an expert in mainstream media, online and in multiple places on Wikipedia. As for Dr. Oz Show, it's viewed by 2.5 million people daily and produced by Oprah Winfrey's studios and considered very influential in the U.S. The Washington Post, a highly influential news source in the United States, has included multiple references to Smith and his related advocacy influence in articles about biotech such as this article from January 2012: Monsanto petition tells Obama to cease FDA ties to Monsanto cite Smith noting, "When Taylor’s appointment was announced, it was criticized by consumers and consumer advocates across the U.S. One such critical consumer advocate, Jeffrey Smith, who campaigns against genetically modified foods... Smith cited as problematic Taylor’s prior involvement in overseeing the policy of Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST)..." Some of the sources on his article are fringe; however, they are not sources to bolster his credibility or influence, they are sources to accurately link to his content and background - which is fringe by many standards as you note and others here have. Smith's notability, as referenced and cited as a "consumer advocate" by mainstream and influential sources such as the Washington Post need this juxtaposition to provide an accurate picture of this individual.CinagroErunam (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the two extra sources linked below by Kooky (and above by you) there is a case for notability. It can be difficult to keep articles on people promoting fringe beliefs from becoming either an attack piece or a shrine. For that reason I think borderline cases should be judged a bit harsher. I can't think of a policy or even guidline for this however. It seems to be in a decent shape at the moment though, so in light of that I will strike my !vote and leave this as a general comment. AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this person meets WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article looks as if it is written to satisfy notability based on the quantity rather than the quality of links. Smith seems notable but I had to search hard among the froth to find anything relevant and reliable to support this. I now believe that the Washington Post, CBS and Reuters articles satisfy notability. Kooky2 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is an expert in his field, and has been interviewed on the Dr Oz Show, and other sources found to prove he is notable. Dream Focus 22:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Charles Honig[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The notability of the subject is unclear. There are few sources on Google News, Trove, Newsbank, Google Books, World Cat that would help establish notability. Most of the sourcing originates from the places hiring him. LauraHale (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO per WP:RS. Is pure WP:ADVERT. The edit history also really bothers me. WP:DUCK suggests that a couple of accounts that are WP:SOCK and WP:SPA have been at work promoting this man. Qworty (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 00:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kami Andrews[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO with her award being a scene award. Fails the general notability guidelines. Interview cited is on a self-published site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Buggie111 (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire as a GNG fail. Also note that the following is unsourced Biography of a Living Person material: "Andrews married at age 18, but divorced before she entered pornography. She spent the first year of her career as a bondage model, before moving on to hardcore. Her first film was New Chicks On The Cock 4." Anybody have a problem with that? Nah, probably not. Porn bios are awesome always — some of the worst writing and worst sourcing on the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Award and nominations come up short for WP:PORNBIO. Fails GNG without non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. Only non-trivial GNews hit at Wired is not completely independent of the subject. Google Book hits are passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From WP:PORNBIO: Nominations and awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. And her only award is from a group scene, ergo not notable. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Taiqi[edit]

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

I'm sorry, but writing study guides (which is what his works appear to be) doesn't make you notable by itself, in my opinion, and I don't see anything else that makes him notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 00:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found nothing covering him on google books or news archives in English or even searching the Chinese characters (with google translation help). I do not think he passes WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--SNOW - Per WP:SNOW No Notability. This Article has been flagged as an orphan since the year 2007. Nothing has been done to meaningfully develop this article since it was created. It appears that there aren't any reliable sources with information that could be included.OfficeGirl (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.scifinow.co.uk/blog/invasion-of-the-not-quite-dead-director-interview/

[2] ttp://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/blzSzD4JTnQ/search/wheatus

[LiJinmei2007-3] Qing Li; Tatuya Jinmei; Keiichi Shima (2007). IPv6 Core Protocols Implementation. Morgan Kaufmann. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-12-447751-3. Retrieved 19 October 2012.

[FischerAndré2006-4] Klaus Fischer; Elisabeth André; Ingo J. Timm (19 October 2006). Multiagent System Technologies: 4th German Conference, MATES 2006, Erfurt, Germany, September 19-20, 2006, Proceedings. Springer. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-45376-5. Retrieved 19 October 2012. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[5] ttp://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/pages/aboutthejournal.aspx

[6] ttp://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/pages/default.aspx

[7] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=The20complement20system20as20another20target20for20inhibition20in20septic20patients3A20Should20we20implement20this20treatment20or20wait20for20the20evidence3F*20Lesur2C20Olivier3B20Hermans2C20Cedric20Critical20Care20Medicine.2040(3)3A988-9902C20March202012

[8] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22903111

[9] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21345278

[10] Bluestein HM, Hoover TA, Banerji AS, Camargo CA Jr, Reshef A, Herscu P. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2009 Dec;103(6):502-7. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced angioedema in a community hospital emergency department.

[11] ttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)

[12] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Andrew20201120ACEI20associated20angioedema20a20case20study20and20review.pdf

[13] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Byrd20201120DPP-420inhibitors20and 20angioedema20a20cause20for20concern3F.pdf

[14] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21978477

[15] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kampitak20201020ANGIOEDEMA20ASSOCIATED20WITH20DUTASTERIDE20THERAPY.pdf

[16] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21131705

[17] ttp://allergynotes.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-to-differentiate-ace-inhibitor.html

[18] Kirkby R, Calabrese C, Kaltman L, Monnier J, Herscu P. Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, April 2009. Methodological Considerations for Controlled Influenza Treatment Studies in CAM.

[19] Kirkby R, Herscu P. Homeopathy. 2010 Jan;99(1):69-75. Review. Homeopathic trial design in influenza treatment.

[20] Herscu P, Hoover TA, Randolph AG. Drug Discov Today. 2009 Dec;14(23-24):1143-9. Epub 2009 Oct 21. Clinical prediction rules: new opportunities for pharma.

[21] ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Rice20201120The20institutional20review20board20is20an20impediment20to20human20research.pdf

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]