Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 August	2 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priorities Of The Human Species[edit]

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

The contents of this article will never be based in fact. It's an open invitation for discussion on a philosophical question. Hometack (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Established the existence of the subject by writing "Its a very difficult subject to define, but priorities do exist because different amounts of effort and resources are put into different things overall on Earth". Since it exists, the difficulty of defining it (also described on the page) is not a valid reason to delete the page. Please explain why the deletion tag is there and debate in the talk page. BenFRayfield (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research; any attempt to make a list as the original editor is doing is original research by definition. Were such an article to exist, it would need to go back to reliable sources, and probably ultimately to some scientific research, e.g. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All items in the list are Wikipedia pages. That is not original. Some of them are strong common sense, like Basic needs goes at the top. If you must delete anything, delete only those that are not clearly agreed on by almost everyone. BenFRayfield (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not even set up pretending to be an encyclopedia article. Rather it is an attempt to determine priorities based upon Wikipedian's opinions. That is not what we are here for. Maybe Wikia has an appropriate wiki for such a thing, or you can create one, but this is not the place for it. LadyofShalott 00:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Totally unsourced, no justification at all for this ordering. Seems to be WP:OR. -- BenTels (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with whomever said it is similar to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which has established notability. This, however, is unsourced and it doesn't give any justification or criticism on the alleged theory. Frankly, it seems to me that this is just the opinion of the writer. I would almost suggest a speedy delete for this one. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, essay, personal opinion, unencylopedic, unreferenced (with no reliable sources available). And on and on and on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and snow close. The concept is interesting, but like others have said above: this is ultimately one person's personal research on the subject and is comprised of original research. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Even if you are someone that would be considered to be an authority on the subject (which hasn't yet been proven, not that I mean that to be insulting), you cannot simply post your own work on Wikipedia. You must have it published through places that are independent and reliable of you and even then you have to be exceedingly careful about how you add it. If you want to create an article based upon your research, you must show that your research has been covered in reliable and independent sources. They must specifically be about your research and not general coverage of similar things that others are doing. At the very most this title could be used to redirect to the Maslow article, but I want to stress that the research in this article is not to be included in any format. I just think that the title could adequately describe Maslow's hierarchy and be used as a search term.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:40, 2 September 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. Consensus for keep was based on the numerous sources provided which most people agree passes WP:GNG. Article should be cleaned up though. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alewyn Burger[edit]

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

Fails GNG little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on nom's argument This is an Invalid argument. See WP:ASSERTN. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed a line with twinkle. I thought I added that I failed to find a single RS that indicates noability. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that additional sources have been found. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V. Weak Keep Should be notable. There are adequate sources in the article itself. He has won a few awards, an has a doctorate, at least according to what I can find on Google itself. He is the director of The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited, and that should assert notability somewhat as the bank is a huge organisation. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 02:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC) — The-Pope (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 02:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC) — The-Pope (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reference to earning a PhD in Mathematics from Harvard University. The article should be deleted because evidence of notability is not available.--Juristicweb (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ph.D. appears to be from the University of South Africa. I added a source for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the nominator didn't provide specific reasons for deletion other than a general fails GNG, I tried to find indications of notability in the article. Unfortunately, I couldn't find reliable secondary sources supporting general notbility or notability as an academic. Being a professor does not render notability, otherwise thousands of professors would be notable just for being a professor. Also, working as an advisor for PwC and SAP does not count for notability, in fact it appears that this article is promoting a advisor for PwC and SAP.--Oceangreenn (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is significant coverage:

Absa's Burger to pursue own business path
Detailed article on Burger: Financial Mail (South Africa) (April 1, 2005) Cio Africa Standard Bank 1. Banking's Big Idea - "Alewyn Burger enjoys a challenge. Clearly. The 53-year-old director of IT and business operations at Standard Bank ..."
Standard Bank COO, Two Others in Accra for Visit

And some other coverage: [1][2][3]. Plus what now is in the article. Also, Burger seems to be a go to guy when newspapers are looking for a quote or comment (which is what the remainder of the sources I found contained). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a decent amount of refs and seems to meet WP:GNG. Obviously requires some clean up, however. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:06, 1 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - Appears to meet WP:BASIC per [4], [5], [6]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:29, 5 September 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) 17:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rev.M.J.Prakash[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Nominating to get past an editor continuing to remove BLPPROD tags, I think more out of misunderstanding rather than vandalism. I'd originally simply reinstated the BLPPROD tag, but have taken it here at the request of SwisterTwister. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Considering that the subject is a pastor, I assumed I was going to find little to nothing of reliable sources and that was the case, yes. I searched both Google US and Google India (English) and found absolutely nothing. It is possible that reliable sources could be another Indian language (Tamil, Hindi, Malayalam, etc.) but I doubt it, again, considering the subject's occupation. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject might exist and might be what the article says he is. But the article does not establish notability. Austria156 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced BLP with no sources apparent in GNews, GBooks, or GScholar. -- 202.124.73.65 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- His presidency of Palanadu Baptist Field Association must possibly make him notable. Since he operates in Inida where the Internet is probably not well-developed and probably in a south Indian language the lack of

Ghits is unsurprising. Furthermore having his surname in the middle of his full name may not help. I take the presidency to be the equivalent of a moderator or an elected bishop to the association, but I have no idea whether that is notable or not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable. No outstanding contribution. Only personal life details. No sources.-Rayabhari (talk) 14:28, 5 September 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) 15:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Employment 2.0[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. The sources use the term very much in passing (or not at all) ; none of the references is actually about the concept and there is no indication that this is in fact a notable term. bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 27 August 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☽ 22:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a proposed neologism used in different ways by different authors. The job search web sites use it to denote Web job search. John Zogby uses it refer to a trend towards temporary/part-time employment as a norm. A third author uses it to refer to crowdsourcing. No real commonalities here. All sources are wp:primary as each has its own definition. If it takes off as a commonly accepted notion in secondary sources or if several such sources decide to cover its current/multiple meanings then it may belong on Wikipedia, but that's not the case right now. Interesting read as a synthesis essay, but outside the scope of Wikipedia as is. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Article's subject doesn't appear to have any significant mention in any reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 20:09, 3 September 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) 15:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zee M Kane[edit]

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

Really a non-notable person--he's listed maybe as an influential tweeter or whatever, but his claim to fame, The Next Web, doesn't make him notable even if it his notable itself. BTW, the subject is related to another BLP that needs another set of eyes, Khalid Muhmood. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, the article seems like a waste of bytes, but it is in fact sourced to several newspaper websites. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but...and? I can't read the FT article, but what I can see is that it was written by his brother, the aforementioned Khalid Muhmood. That stuff about his marriage and his parents and all that, that's unverified BLP trivia. What do we have left? The mere mention that his tweets were deemed important--an importance which follows from the zine he publishes. (Note that The Next Web may well suffer from some sort of collusion or COI editing--it doesn't even state clearly what the topic is: a magazine.) In fact, I'm tempted to trim the unverified and irrelevant stuff to see what we have left: a sentence. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, "but". The "Independent" and "Telegraph" articles are both available from the article. The list looks weird because there are lots of famous people mixed in with obviously non-famous people. Pete Cashmore and UMAIR HAQUE seem to have achieved an even more surprising result than Zee M. Kane. There is a list of people and most of them have over a million followers, then at the top of the list are aparent nonentities like Pete Cashmore, Umair Haque, and Zee M Kane who don't even make six figures. But the thing was published on the websites of the newspaper. It seems like a hoax or a swizz or a fix, doesn't it? But they have successfully hoaxed those newspapers. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to have originally been created as a self-bio by Zeedotme, a year later the only thing HighBeam can come with him being "notable" for being high on a list of tweeters, repeated across three publicatios (Independent, Mail, regional echo's of the above two). Unlike Peter Cashmore, doesn't seem to have done much more, hence personally not passing WP:NOTABILITY. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 00:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 August 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) 05:43, 25 August 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☽ 21:54, 1 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Prasad Kesar[edit]

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

None of the sources given in the article are actually about him alone, just about events where he spoke or the like. He doesn't appear to be the coverage of any reliable sources, although I'll happily withdraw if actual sources about him are found. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of mentions, it's possible that more significant ones are not in english. heather walls (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanyogke (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 19 August 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☽ 04:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is Secretary CPM Jammu (India) and Sham Prasad Kesar is in the opposition party of Jammu and Kashmir for a long period; CMP is a minority party in the state. The article has scope for further development with lot of reliable sources like Times of India, Zee news, The new Indian Express which are reliable newspapers of India. We may watch for development of article.-Rayabhari (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, I checked those coverage, and the coverage is for the party, and not about him. The fact that the party is notable is not disputed. However, notability is not inherited and thus notability does not extend to him unless he is the coverage of actual independent coverage, instead of that of his party. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:46, 1 September 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☽ 21:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG ("Significant coverage"). Only trivial mentions found in RS.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:48, 2 September 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) —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IVOD[edit]

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

Awful orphan article about a would-be buzzword that doesn't seem to be used anymore Bhny (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IVOD is not notable WP:N in any way. it was never notable and is not notable now. It is also an advertisement for Active Video Networks and specifically for a single trade show they did in 2010 WP:ADVERTISING Bhny (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Just what's the policy-based rationale for deletion here? "Awful"? "Orphan"? "Not used anymore"? After all, the 2010 references are _so_ last year! Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two ITVT res establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 02:33, 5 September 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) 17:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasinski Flower[edit]

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

Looks like original research. There are many ways of generating interesting looking mathematical curves and it would need something more to make it notable. The first reference is a standard formula book and I'm fairly sure these are not mentioned. The second reference is a Polish paper I don't have access to. Salix (talk): 21:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also can't find any evidence that these are anything but original research. They don't seem to exist in Google scholar, in Google books, in MathWorld, or in the specific books and web pages cited as sources here (unless it's in the Russian one which I can't read). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure WP:OR. Not found at all in GBooks, GScholar, or even plain Google searches. -- 202.124.73.16 (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. linas (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like OR to me, probably naming curves for friends as well. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:58, 3 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pydgical Creole[edit]

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

Apparently hoax. There are no supporting references in the article. It was created (and dePROD'd) by an editor with a short edit history. There is nothing in google about it (except for stuff derived from wikipedia). The name 'Pýǧıkal Kriôl' isn't known to google at all, except from this page. Google scholar doesn't recognise the name of the putative creator, and no linguist by with the surname 'Hasan' in the first three pages of 'Hasan' hits. The dePROD message was 'Although it was designed to be spoken in the Indian Ocean, it is spoken in many households in the US, especially in San Francisco and Houston.' which seems unlikely given it has no google coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Delete as G3, blatant hoax. An elaborate one, it seems, but still blatant. Google finds absolutely nothing about the language or its creator. First Light (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally, I don't think of this as a hoax, I am rather inclined to believe that the person who contributed this (undoubtedly the author of the language) simply misunderstands the rules regarding notability, verifiability, third party sources, etc. I'd say: carry on with the project and publish it on a website or use a conlang wiki or somesuch, but be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own work, nor the place to promote it. Should your project become a success, and the media or other independent sources start writing about it, then it could have an article here, but not before that. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:50, 3 September 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) 17:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iteration of mathematical curves[edit]

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

A howto type article which duplicates material and contains some original research Salix (talk): 21:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete potentially useful on some other project maybe (after a lot of work), but not an encyclopaedic topic or article, per WP:NOTHOWTO.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any worthwhile material already exists in Polar coordinate system, etc. -- 202.124.73.16 (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete appears to consist entirely of original research.linas (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems to be author's notes of their explorations with a parametric curve plotting package - original research, poorly written, not encyclopedic. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Condtional delete - if someone with expertise on the topic could fix it, I would be happier keeping this than a deletion, because the concept or idea appears to be notable. However, it is such a mess of a synthesis that it is unencyclopedic as written. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 7 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Revenge of the Ice Warriors[edit]

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

I thought this was a hoax at first - a google search returned nothing. However, if it is real, and I'm missing something, then per WP:CRYSTALBALL - unreleased episode. Theo polisme 20:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Considering that the article claims 2013 as the air date, this would be a case of Wikipedia:CRYSTAL and Wikipedia:TOOSOON. I also haven't found any sources to suggest a return of the Ice Warriors but rather a few sources for the first episode featuring the Ice Warriors. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

userfy per WP:CRYSTAL. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CrystalBall. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It is simply just too soon for an article on a Doctor Who episode scheduled to air in Spring 2013. TBran dl ey 19:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:47, 3 September 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local maximum intensity projection[edit]

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

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks deleteable, as merely a special case of something we cover elsewhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess merging would be an option, too, but this looks fairly promotional, which is why I didn't mention it at first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So who or what is it promoting? Citing an author for a non-proprietary technique is a long way from overly promoting that author. The technique is pretty much self-evident to anyone skilled in the arts by taking maximum intensity projection and adding the notion "Local maxima can be used too" Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maximum Intensity Projection. It's an efficient development of a base technique, and it provides a more readable article to describe both on the same page. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:SK 2e "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". This is because the nomination says that no sources were found when the article already contains a source. That paper by Sato et al is cited in numerous books as you can readily see by checking the link above. The nominator seems to have made this nomination as part of a spree in which the facts of each case are not being checked. Warden (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maximum intensity projection 62 cites to main paper [7] which is good, but this seems more a refinement of the other article than a completely new technique so a merge is appropriate.--Salix (talk): 22:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as above: two short articles which will much better serve readers and editors as one. Does not preclude splitting off the topic if one day there is enough for a separate article, but falls far short of needing that now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see new content. This is a separate technique. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per obvious reasons/Warden. Ryan Vesey 12:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why this was even nominated, perhaps the nomination should be withdrawn? linas (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google book search and scholar search shows this is a real thing, which people who know this industry do talk about. Dream Focus 23:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Overly technical" is not a reason to delete. WP:SOFIXIT, don't delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sourcing showing in footnotes. An ill-considered nomination, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nomination does not appear to be about the article itself as about the annoying deprodding editor. Eau (talk) 18:38, 3 September 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Streamsurface[edit]

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

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least move to a disambig title, as there seem to be a lot more definitions than the one given here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are these other definitions and what are these other articles that we'd be disambiguating. Please provide some evidence. Warden (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as Introduction to Scientific Visualization. Warden (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Streamlines, streaklines, and pathlines which covers the core concept in more depth. Not sure if there is enough material to justify a separate article.--Salix (talk): 21:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Different than a streamline. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a basic concept from computer graphics, it has made plenty of appearances at SIGGRAPH and would be expected background knowledge for anyone in the industry. linas (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real thing, and Google book search finds 1,510 results. Looking through those, it seems like a lot of people write about it. And Linas seems to understand what this is, so I see no reason to doubt his comments above mine. Dream Focus 23:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expandable, notable subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep appears to be mistaken AfD with nominator's claim of no sources when there are plenty. Nomimator should withdraw and find the correct article he/she meant to nominate to discontinue wasting time on mistaken AfD. If bored, plenty of maintenance cats. Eau (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - A simple Google search for "STREAM SURFACE" (exact phrase) + "3D" generates a plethora of potential sources, such as THIS ARTICLE, "Automatic Stream Surface Seeding," among others. Article title should probably be changed to Stream surface. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Carrite. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skin friction lines[edit]

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

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator took all of 30 seconds to make this nomination as part of a cookie-cutter spree. The nomination seems to be personal in nature and so violates WP:SK 2b "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption". For those actually interested in the topic, there's a good NASA paper, Topology of Three-Dimensional Separated Flows, which discusses skin friction lines in detail and references the papers of other researchers. Warden (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these seem to have an impressive pedigree. A quick search find this paper [8] which mentions that they were studied back in 1962, probably much earlier Legendre in 1956?. Numerous papers mention them and there seem to be some important mathematical questions on limiting behaviour. There could be a deep article here and as being lines on the surface of an object rather than of the air surrounding and object a merge to Streamlines, streaklines, and pathlines doesn't seem appropriate.--Salix (talk): 22:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close – Per WP:NRVE and because this topic passes WP:GNG. Examples: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click Google books and you'll find ample results proving this is a real thing, and it is important for this field. The nominator has been asked before to stop nomination sprees. Deletion rational was copy and pasted to 11 related articles. Dream Focus 14:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, per everyone. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination itself does not appear to be rational or coherent. Perhaps nominator should consider withdrawing the nomination? It is a waste of my time to even review these kinds of things, this is rather disruptive behaviour. linas (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Overly technical" is not a reason to delete. Also, any editor can "de-prod" for any reason (or no reason) as they see fit. They also can de-prod for any reason and not tell anyone. So that's not a reason to delete either. Is the essay WP:SOURGRAPES about to be written?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment too late: it's already been written at WP:GRAPES.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up "Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining" -- actually, the contesting editor did indeed provide a reason on the articles talk page, and it appears to be well before this AFD was created.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with hundreds of reliable sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nomination does not appear to be about the article itself as about the annoying deprodding editor. Eau (talk) 18:40, 3 September 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asymptotic Decider[edit]

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

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of GScholar refs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even this brief, strikes me as too wordy for a dicdef. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:SK 2e "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". This is because the nomination says that no sources were found when the article already contains a source. That paper by Nielson and Hamann is cited in numerous books as you can readily see by checking the link above. The nominator seems to have made this nomination as part of a spree in which the facts of each case are not being checked. Warden (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Per WP:NRVE and an apparent lack of a source search per section D of WP:BEFORE. The nomination states that no sources were found. However, one reliable source already existed in the article prior to the nomination! Source examples include: The asymptotic decider: resolving the ambiguity in marching cubes, Application of marching cubes algorithm in visualization of mineral deposits. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps when he said "no sources", he meant no significant coverage by reliable sources. For example, a passing mention of something can be referenced, but that doesn't make it the significant coverage that is required. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe the nominator's point is that this is a brief description of a highly technical subject matter, questioning its relevance and worthiness to a general, everyman encyclopedia. I think we're well within the scope of WP:NOT #7 here, "scientific journals and research papers", along with WP:NOT#JARGON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)
Delete unless sources testifying that this algorithm is an important one are provided. A source that merely describes the algorithm is insufficient for notability. --regentspark (comment) 12:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click Google books and you'll find ample results proving this is a real thing, and it is important for this field. Encyclopedia of microcomputers: Volume 26 - Page 368, for example. No need copying and pasting things here, just click the link at the top of the AFD, and tell me if anyone sincerely doubts this is notable. The nominator has been asked before to stop nomination sprees. Deletion rational was copy and pasted to 11 related articles. Dream Focus 14:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Procedural Keep per Northamerica100. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is part of a series of disruptive nominations for deletion. None of the others in this series, that I've looked at so far, have any merit, and certainly, this one does not either. It is a waste of everyone's time to have to look at these one by one, and I resent the utter disrespect the nominator shows for everyone involved. We all have better things to do in life than to do this. linas (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "I don't understand it" is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with dozens of reliable book and journal sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Does not seem expandable"? I have expanded it a bit (just by reading the reference originally provided, not adding any special knowledge of my own) and there are lots of other citations in Seng et al. as well as via other comments above, to look through for more information such as examples of use. "No sources found"? Pardon? There was a source in the version tagged for deletion. "Deprodded by an editor who..."? Personal attack. --Mirokado (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nominator did not check for sources in half dozen other nominarions, so I am guessing he just decides there are no spurces if the term is unfamiliar to him, and bulk of nom is disparaging remark about other editor, sort of indicating what the nomination is really about. Eau (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to find a discussion of isosurfaces today which doesn't contain a description of this algorithm, e.g. [13] [14]. The article can definitely be expanded to at least contain a description of the actual algorithm. As for the assertion by some editors above that Wikipedia shouldn't contain algorithms because they're of no use to the "everyman", well... if we go this way, Wikipedia should perhaps state indubitably that God exists because that's what the American everyman believes. "Keep'em in the dark" should be the new motto of Wikipedia... Not. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection[edit]

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

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SK 2e "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". This is because the nomination says that no sources were found when the article already contains a source. That is cited elsewhere as you can readily see by checking the search links to books and scholarly papers above. The nominator seems to have made this nomination as part of a spree in which the facts of each case are not being checked. Warden (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close – Per WP:NRVE and an apparent lack of considering section D of WP:BEFORE. These sources took only moments to locate:

Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection for Unsteady Flow Visualization
Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection of Noise and Dye Textures for Unsteady Flow Visualization
A computational Lagrangian–Eulerian advection remap for free surface flows

Also, how could no sources be found (as stated in the nomination) when one already existed in the article prior to the nomination? How would removal of this easily-expandable article about a notable concept and topic benefit the encyclopedia? Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe the nominator's point is that this is a brief description of a highly technical subject matter, questioning its relevance and worthiness to a general, everyman encyclopedia. I think we're well within the scope of WP:NOT #7 here, "scientific journals and research papers", along with WP:NOT#JARGON. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under this theory, we might as well delete all Wikipedia articles dealing with the mathematical advances of the last 100 years or so. --JBL (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding we have a lot of articles based on the work of Lagarangian. I started gathering them up in a catalog for him Category:Joseph Louis Lagrange, and then found in one article there is a category already. Category:Lagrangian mechanics Someone who understand this, or just has access to a college level textbook about this sort of thing, should comment on what's notable and whats not. Dream Focus 15:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per Northamerica100. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep This is part of a series of disruptive nominations for deletion, none of which seem to have any merit. linas (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge. Plently of cites, hint click scholar link above. While there is certainly enough to make a larger article, it might be preferable for now to combine Texture advection Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection, and Image-based flow visualization together in a single article or posibly a section in Flow visualization‎. They are all variations on a theme and one reasonably size article might server the reader better than three stubs.--Salix (talk): 19:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy created a lot of notable math/science things. Many scholars do cite this. Dream Focus 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about Lagrange or anything he came up with. Did you even do the most basic search about the article before voting? Lagrange was dead long before scientific visualization came around. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If something he created was notable enough to be used centuries later in a new industry, that seems rather notable to me. Dream Focus 21:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is not uncommon in the realm of "science/mathematics" for a law/rule/postulate to bear the name of someone who died centuries before it was proven or otherwise generally accepted. The Pareto Principle comes to mind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article; it's called Lagrangian-Euler advection, because at a stage it makes use of Lagrangian coordinates. I think the article should be kept; because of the significant coverage in reliable academic sources, but bad arguments aren't helping anyone. If I call my theory "Einstein-Planck-Bohr-Pauli Theory", it doesn't mean it's notable in any way; it has absolutely no bearing. "This guy", is called Bruno Jobard, not Langrange. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple mistake. One of the guys was born in 1736 and the other in 1707. If they didn't work together on this, but someone else came up with it later on, then my mistake. It still gets coverage, as others have found and linked to already. Click the Google book search link at the top of the AFD, and you can see other sources, it appears to be used by a lot of people and is thus notable. Dream Focus 16:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Overly technical" is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit and improve.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with dozens of reliable book and journal sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, POINT nom, editor did not check for sources, simply afd'ed short articles on topics outside his area. Is it a conspiracy to keep Wikipedia away from technical subjects? Eau (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Significant coverage in reliable academic sources. If someone wants to see some just ask and I'll paste examples of significant coverage (see google books and google scholar). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. There are dozens of reliable sources entirely about this algorithm. Tarc made a valid point, but Wolfie and others have expanded the article, making it easier for non elite readers to see what Lagrangian–Eulerian advection is all about. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:03, 6 September 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex Core Line[edit]

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

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SK 2e "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". This is because the nomination says that no sources were found when the article already contains a source. More sources can be readily found as you can see by following the search links above. The nominator seems to have made this nomination as part of a spree in which the facts of each case are not being checked. Warden (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*delete only sources i could find are WP mirrors. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changing to snow keep LibStar (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the source {em|mentioned in the article}}? It is a source, and is not a mirror. --Nouniquenames (talk)
You're probably just as competent as TPH. Did you even click the "books" links in the template above? I'm not convinced that it's actually notable, but it's surely mentioned in visualization books [15] [16]. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Don't claim there are no sources to be found when results are just a click away. Those 151 book results don't look like they are all Wikipedia mirrors to me. Also, with an article this short, what would they be mirroring? Dream Focus 23:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per Warden. AfD is factually inaccurate in stating that no sources could be found when there is a source in the article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This definition seems to be of interest in the rather esoteric field of topology-based flow visualization algorithms. As I understand it from the helicopter after glancing at a few pages in ISBN 978-3-540-70822-3 (p. 8-9), there are several features by which a vortex core may be identified, and the vortex core line is one of them, although other feature of interest exist as well. There are also several algorithms proposed for vertex core line identification. It would make more sense to have a general article on the general topic of topology-based flow visualization. Perhaps a merge/redirect to Computational fluid dynamics#Vortex method would make most sense for now? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we are looking to a merge then Flow visualization‎ is a better target. The vortex method is something quite different to what is studied here.--Salix (talk): 17:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that seems to be the case. I was hoping something more proximate exists. Flow visualization covers no computational methods at this time, only experimental ones! It just says that visualizing CFD solutions may be a good idea. Duh... Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you look in the right places you find there are lots of papers on the subject. Google scholar search. With [17] 91 cites, [18] 42 cites, [19] 14 cites, [20] 52 cites, [21] 32 cites, [22] 53 cites.--Salix (talk): 17:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for fluid dynamics noobs like me the article would be more convincing if it (1) said why this feature is interesting, (2) at least enumerated some of the better-known algorithms for its detection. But with ~200 papers at least mentioning the notion (usually in conjunction with "extraction"), I grant that it's probably a keep & expand. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is part of a series of disruptive nominations for deletion, none of which seem to have any merit. linas (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been found proving this is a notable thing. Dream Focus 23:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with stubs.--Paul McDonald (t alk) 03:19, 3 September 2012 (
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with dozens of reliable book and journal sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other things being equal, if it looked like a worthwhile candidate for expansion short of some interested editor's attentions, if the PDF had been properly formatted, etc. I would have said keep or merge. As is I say delete or merge. Don't see how anybody could say it wasn't read before making a judgment and I'm dubious of the stated mathematics as well, in particular the linear algebraic assertion. Lycurgus (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment while we want the math behind any such technical article to be accurate, such a bold assertion without evidence makes me think "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" -- if it's wrong, show us the proof.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about doing so before comment above but amending/extending per user above. All that's given on the page ATM is a definition, not a theorem or other statement that could be proven or disproven. So dubious of the applicability to the various fluid dynamic problems, but just that not asserting anything except that it's unworthy to be an article in its own right as currently composed and supported. Also just looked at the PDF in chrome. I'm not a deletionist except as the quality issue is concerned, even a stub can have issues, and just don't see all the impetus for keep, so expressing my opinion. Lycurgus (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reversed. The stuff that was there is no longer, what's there now looks reasonable. No idea what Paul McDonald was on about, diff speaks for itself. Lycurgus (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, appears to be disgruntled retaliatory POINT nom, note nom says no soures, so did not check for sources, and most of nom taken up by personal remark about other editor. Waste of time noms should be speedy kept as disruptive to editing. Eau (talk) 14:49, 3 September 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. WP:SNOW. Merger can be discussed through normal channels if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlet (Scientific Visualization)[edit]

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

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into streamline as a related concept with a more common name. For an example of coverage, see the Visualization Handbook. Warden (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be merged I suppose, but it seems that it can be expandable. But even if it isn't, there's nothing wrong with stubs. And another candidate for WP:SOURGRAPES...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Dozens of reliable book and journal sources exist. For the rest of this nomination spree, the sources were right there on the GB and GS links. Here the article name makes the search a tiny bit trickier, but there's plenty on GS here. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nomination does not appear to be about the article itself as about the annoying deprodding editor. Eau (talk) 18:40, 3 September 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. snow and/or speedy 2e, take your pick (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor glyph[edit]

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

Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is "overly technical"? "Not expandable" is implausible. TenPoundHammer, I invite you to think back on all the thousands of applied mathematics seminars you've attended over the last few decades, and remember how many began with simple definitions like this one, and how much mileage the speaker got out of each of them. Seeing your comments on your AfD proposals has not contributed to my respect for you. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef." Does anyone else see that as rather a contradiction? Nor is WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT a valid reason for deletion.

As to any issues of expansion, clarification or sourcing, then I'd remind the nominator that "Don't expect the house to build itself.", the same patronising comment they've just seen fit to deliver to a couple of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect this house to be built with? Prove it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, do you know what a tensor field is, because this isn't going far if you don't (and it wasn't even wl'ed until I just added it). If you do, then read the (linked) Kindlmann paper, which gives a fairly good explanation.

Tensor fields are Hard Sums. I don't understand them - even though I trained as a physicist - because my maths was never up to Fields Medal standard. So I'm just a poor dumb little code monkey. However I do also have much the same problem in data visualisation: how to represent a field (maybe simplified as a discrete field) of multi-attribute tuple values for each point in the field. This technique, that of mapping attribute dimensions onto the parameters of a varying glyph shape, is equally applicable to both clever tensor fields and me throwing my monkey-poop at your computer screens. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: As presented, this is a dicdef. No sources discussing the subject in "significant detail" are proffered, and it's been multiple-tagged for over a year without any attempt to improve or source it. That being said, Andy's keep seems far more grounded in antagonism towards TPH than out of any valid policy or guideline which would support retention ... of which he proffers none. (For my part, no, there's no contradiction in "overly technical" / "dicdef". Is there a word count beyond which a dicdef isn't a dicdef any more?) Ravenswing 20:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have added to this article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2e, WP:BEFORE and WP:CIR. If anyone should doubt the notability of the topic, please see Visualization and Processing of Tensor Fields. Warden (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added both content and specific references, including a line that better explains what the article is about. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two pages in the book found by Warden are enough to show this is a notable topic, particularly because one can trivially find more of the same [23] [24] [25]. What this article needs is some illustrations, not deletion. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Warden. Also, if "overly technical" was a problem, we'd throw out the "English" Wikipedia and just keep the "Simple English" one. -- 202.124.72.177 (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per obvious reasons/Warden. Ryan Vesey 12:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standard topic in scientific visualization. linas (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking Google book search at the top of the AFD, shows results that prove its a real thing, and all notable scientific things should be in the encyclopedia. The Wikipedia isn't just a pop culture junkyard, it actually contains actually educational content in places in case someone wants to learn about things other than famous people and entertainment media. Dream Focus 23:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#2 Disparaging nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources cited, looks good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Sufficient sourcing cited. Ill-considered nomination. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 3 September 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 - Hammered. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera's seventh studio album[edit]

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

Article should be incubated or redirected to Christina Aguilera as it does not have a confirmed title or release date. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook WP:HAMMER. All information so far is mere speculation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Rumor. HelloSk8 • ^{(Na veia)} 19:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, single has been confirmed, and shes has confirmed a release of the album later this year, possible title news and artwork for both album and single THIS SEPTEMBER. valued info in here, i think its stupid to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.64.20.135 (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC) AND KESHA HAS ALSO GO TO KEEP HER PAGE ON HER UNTITLED ALBUM, SO WHY NOT XTINA!?[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not an acceptable argument for why this page should be kept. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as per above. The album is going to be released later possibly in 2-3 months time.Bleubeatle (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Incubate Fails WP:NOT. Vapid topic without an encyclopedic purpose. We don't need to guess about the future, we can wait for it. We also are not a bulletin board to post future events, nor a newspaper gossip column, nor a press-release reproduction house. This won't even be the title. Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Stop. WP:HAMMER time. Although I'll be happy with Userfy if we can work out who wants it in their userspace, The sources talk more about Your Body (Christina Aguilera song) than the album. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:HAMMER Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hammer time. This article also fails WP:NOT as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no title, no release date, no tracklisting... it's too early. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 13:38, 6 September 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) 17:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Nazareno[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Ecuadorian Serie A, a league not confirmed as fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 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.

Delete - Article was deleted and creator blocked for multiple instances of copyright infringement (non-admin closure) Theo polisme 20:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes Of Lies[edit]

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

Not a notable band Bihco (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (WP:G12) This article is actually a copy violation of their Facebook page, and has been deleted multiple times for that very reason. It may need some form of salting, actually. Theo polisme 17:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_{To clarify, it was deleted as "Eyes of lies", not "Eyes of Lies". Theopolisme 17:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:23, 1 September 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) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alvester Alexander[edit]

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

never played in NFL game (fails WP:NSPORTS and I don't think that an article saying him and 10 other UFAs were signed, his college player bio, an article about the Bears releasing several players, and a transactions page on NFL.com qualifies as "significant coverage" per WP:GNG Go Phightins! (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON.--Batard0 (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and does not attain notability through any other measure I can find. Could clear it in the future, of course...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. At this time, the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. Gongshow ^Talk 05:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, I added a source, but still fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Same applies to Long Ding, which I PROD'd. Zappa O Mati 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, never mind about the Long Ding bit. Just had the PROD removed. Zappa O Mati 22:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability under WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON; notability must be established under general notability requirements of WP:GNG. My Google News Archive search reveals a lot of hits of a routine post-game nature and also transactional coverage of him foregoing his senior year to enter the 2012 NFL Draft (where he was a complete bust). Four of the five sources cited in the article are not independent of the subject (WyomingCowboysAthletics.com, NFL.com, ChicagoBears.com (2)), and therefore cannot support notability per WP:GNG. Fifth cited source is a blog on a local radio station's website, and should be given minimal credit for establishing notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding non-trivial coverage in mainstream media outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 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 merge to United Nations Intelligence Taskforce#UNIT dating. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNIT dating controversy[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Most of this article is either:

Unsourceable
Sourceable only to primary sources.
Sourced to the creators of Doctor Who novels and episodes (Chris Howarth, Steve Lyons, Lawrence Miles, Lance Parkin, Justin Richards) who are not independent enough to WP:verify notability.
Sourced to trivial mentions, which are not enough to verify notability, according to the general notability guideline.

And just to pre-empt any wikilawyering around "the guideline doesn't tell us what trivial means", I should point out that the sources all say the same thing: that fans have a hard time figuring out the dates for these episodes. That's what the article reflects: a single statement that establishing dates is hard, sourced to multiple sources, none of which are independent.

Across Wikipedia, we would never source a single statement about a "controversy" to multiple participants in the controversy, and then use original research to flesh it out into a stand-alone article. And if we did, we'd delete it. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is obviously an expansion of the section United_Nations_Intelligence_Taskforce#UNIT_dating. Whether this split is too much or should be merged back into that article is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Would this get anywhere near AfD if it was "Batman dating controversy"? Yet again, WP has a policy ostensibly against primary sourcing and in-universe issues for fictional topics, yet this is never enforced against the output of the major US studios or comics publishers. Sheer US-centric bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The cacophony of e.g. Star Trek and Star Wars-related AfDs suggests otherwise. Regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFF factors in. --EEMIV (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of your !vote, I do appreciate your concession that this article is against policy. I agree that policy should be applied consistently. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, summarize in UNIT article. The bulk of the article is to try to present evidence from dating of episodes, but this is a massive failure of WP:SYNTH, as to prove the point there is a dating issue. It's also far UNDUE coverage compared to how much this is actually a point in the fandom (read: nearly none). A mention can be made that the dating is inconsistent for UNIT stories on the article about UNIT but not its own article. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back per Warden. This isn't the place to lay out all the evidence on either side; leave that to specialized wikis. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 4 September 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) 03:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Rey[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 22. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Singer/songwriter with coverage in multiple WP:RS secondary sources including interesting educational biographic informative material. See for example (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), specifically 40 results in Google Books, another 24 results in Google News archives, etc. — Cirt (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the totals you state are results for the keywords, though your stated 40 results is over optimistic when I click Big G from the UK. Some are results for other people with Margo Rey in the search. Others are mentions in passing, a drive by that does not qualify as a real reference for anything except that the person exists. I find insufficient material so far for me to take a positive stance in this discussion. Equally I find there is no reason at present for me to take a negative stance. I may yet be persuaded to either view. I am aware that Big G is not the final arbiter of notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am now persuaded. Keep as notable per Vertium, below; additions to the article do it for me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability for musicians is not achieved solely through references in newspapers and magazines. This article should be kept for the following reasons:

The artist is notable (per WP:MUSICBIO Criteria 2) in that three of her released songs on two albums have achieved a significant level on the Adult Contemporary (chart), a Billboard chart that has been in existence since 1961. Two songs were in the Top 20 of this chart and one peaked at position 21.
The article on her by independent Billboard Magazine (as a “Bubbling Under” artist) calls her charting “a notable achievement…, considering the format's almost exclusive reliance on multi-format hits released on major labels"
Has had her performances reviewed in reliable, non-self-published, independent works (meeting criteria of WP:MUSICBIO #1).
Per WP:ATD, if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. There is foundational notability and enough independent WP:RS to support this article. If the article requires additional editing, I believe that’s the more appropriate route

I have additional independent sources which I'm adding to the article now. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 18:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The combination of three charted songs, plus some decent (albeit not overwhelming) coverage in reliable sources - including Billboard magazine, Billboard.com, Las Vegas Sun, and CBS Radio - is enough in my view to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 07:21, 4 September 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) 17:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of North East India Studies[edit]

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

New journal, article creation premature. Not included in any selective major database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. All the refs do is prove that it exists, not that it is notable. GregJackP Boomer! 15:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If Guillaume is correct about database inclusion we have a good indication of non-notability. That the refs currently don't prove anything is par for the course for (new) academic journals, so that argument doesn't mean a whole lot. But these days, if something isn't included in the kind of database Guillaume is hinting at, it's one hand clapping in a forest where no tree is falling cause no one is there. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:24, 1 September 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 Withdrawn by nominator. The person seems to be notable, but the article still looks like an ad. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Bamford[edit]

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

Probably not a speedy deletion candidate, but I just do not see how this lady is notable. She is a head of family business, which is claimed to get some awards, but until we can find what major awards these are, and in what reliable sources were they reported, the article fails WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is an unsourced biography of a living person and reads like an advert / press release. However, Bamford and her businesses have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Luxist coverage of her beauty products, and each boutique. She and her husband are noted as extremely wealthy. She is covered in conjunction with her fashion line. Also covered in conjunction with her organic farm shop. The shop itself has been reviewed indicating it isn't some minor little family business. Coverage in the Telegraph. And a feature article about her. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There were a lot more results but this is more than sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 21 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:43, 25 August 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) 14:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. Subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Examples include, (but are not limited to): [26], [27], [28]. Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:37, 5 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overloaded: The Singles Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable tour. Relevant information is adequately covered in Overloaded: The Singles Collection. Till 10:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 19:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:45, 25 August 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) 14:04, 1 September 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) 17:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Godlike Productions[edit]

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

Conspiracy forum with little claim to notability. It's a competitor to the Above Top Secret forums, but there are many contenders that lack the mainstream media coverage that gives notability credentials for a Wikipedia article. Godlike Productions seems to be one, unless reliable sources can be presented in the course of this AfD discussion. __meco (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. __meco (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of conspiracy theory websites (redlink), per WP:NWEB. There's a fair amount of original research in the current article. It'd be good if there were a bit more background to this site to sustain an article, because it's been noted as "the place to start to find the best of the conspiratorial web" and was also mentioned at iScienceTimes in connection with conspiracies around the recent death of Neil Armstrong. -- Trevj (talk) 11:51, 31 August 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) 14:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it, because Godlike Productions is one of the top 3000 websites in the world in traffic, according to Alexa, and is considered to be one of the two top conspiracy theory forums in the world, alongside Above Top Secret (that do have an article on Wikipedia). Godlike Productions is mentioned at the top of several lists of conspiracy forums, in several different websites accross the web. GLP became a cultural element, and is mentioned in the Rational Wiki and the Urban Dictionary. There is no reason for Wikipedia to ignore Godlike Productions, while Above Top Secret has an article. Delete both, or delete none. MoranTard (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— MoranTard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. gnews reveals mainly one phrase mentions. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any WP:RSs to establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 16:55, 8 September 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Non-notable group and the only links I've found are either business profiles or press releases. The only non-press release link I found is this Securities and Exchange Commission page. Among the the press releases are this, this and this. Additionally, this bankruptcy file claim would not be enough to support this article. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 01:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 01:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ceragenin, their product. The company is not independently notable, and the product article is much less promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 18 August 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☽ 04:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NCORP. A redirect to Ceragenin wouldn't be appropriate because AFAIK the licence could be renegotiated in the future, unless the inventor is linked to the company. Previously named OnSource, also [29][30][31]. Maybe there are other more appropriate refs, if anyone feels like trawling through the search results. -- Trevj (talk) 10:51, 31 August 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) 13:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per [32], [33], [34]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:42, 5 September 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) 15:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Wolfe[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Nouniquenames (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please, note that Erwin Wolfe was known mainly as Red Wolfe. He seems to be rather a locally known musician in the Twin Cities. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ervin "Red" Wolfe was very well known in the Upper Midwest. He played Jazz festivals around the country, appearing with such jazz greats as Milt Hinton, Ralph Sutton, and Clark Terry. He brought jazz to over 100,000 students in schools around the Minneapolis area. In 1985, he was awarded a certificate of commendation from Governor Rudy Perpich for keeping jazz alive in Minnesota.

• Also in 1985, St. Paul mayor George Latimer and Minneapolis mayor Don Fraser proclaimed November 16th “Red Wolfe and Percy Hughes Day” in the Twin Cities.. He certainly should meet the criteria for notability. Deacon47(talk)

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) 13:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Delete My google search turned up next to nothing, and I just don't see a way that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - agree with Go Phightins!; there just doesn't seem to be anything available to verify notability as per WP:GNG. Given his DOB/DOD, though, there may be off-line sources which might be of use. Would be keen to see comments/edits from some Minneapolis locals who might have greater access to off-line sources. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:09, 3 September 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) 15:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SID Magazine[edit]

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

New magazine, article creation premature. No independent sources beyond press releases and some in-passing mentions on (themselves also non-notable) blogs. Does not meet WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:41, 25 August 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, -- Trevj (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I did a search and there just isn't any in-depth coverage in any independent and reliable sources. The ones given on the article aren't considered to be RS per Wikipedia and even then, the mention of this magazine in those sources is rather brief or looks to be purely a press release. The most I could find were one-off mentions that the magazine was interviewing someone, but nothing that was actually about the magazine itself. Notability is not inherited by interviewing notable people or any other association with notable groups or individuals. This really is just a clear cut case of WP:TOOSOON.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worley noise[edit]

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

Deprodded by author with addition of sources, but I'm not convinced that this can be expanded beyond a mere dicdef. Especially since the creator of the term doesn't have an article — this seems like putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the weakest case for deletion I've ever seen. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that a technique can't be notable unless its originator is presumably notable and also has a pre-existing article seems like a particularly misinformed reading of WP:OSE. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to misunderstand our WP:DICDEF policy, which has nothing to do with the potential for expansion. "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." Warden (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think I'm misunderstanding it? I know that short and dicdef aren't synonymous. I'm saying that it's both. I fail to see any content here that is not a mere definition of the term, nor do I see any reason to believe that it will ever be anything more than a definition. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator appears confused on the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. This is a technical topic about a particular algorithm. A dicdef will say what it is, who invented it and what it's used for - none of which is terribly useful here. An encyclopedia can go further than this, still without falling foul of HOWTO, and can explain how it does it, the theoretical basis it's built on and what came before it, and on the implications of parameters as to how it's used and how the end results are thus varied. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Don't expect the house to build itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TPH as WP:DICDEF, poorly ref'd, only 4 GBook hits, GHits show it mainly as an alternate name for "Cell noise," It fits DicDef perfectly. GregJackP Boomer! 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The original (1996) paper has about 200 citations in GS though, which shows it to be an influential enough method. There's nothing in WP:N saying that it needs more than 4 GB hits (and I count 8 actually). Tijfo098 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obviously not an alternate name for cell noise. It's a particular algorithm, whereas cell noise is a natural phenomenon. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Haven't researched yet, but Hammer v. Dingley, already has me excited!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'll love WP:ANI#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. He's nominated a dozen of them, all with the same feeble nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if is is not, 3 of the 4 books have it wrong, plus many of the other hits. GregJackP Boomer! 03:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that there's one person who's not convinced it can be expanded beyond a dictionary definition is trumped be the fact that it can obviously be expanded beyond that. That would be obvious even if the recent expansion (after this nomination) hadn't proved it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Don't expect the house to build itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) It's already grown beyond a dictionary definition.
- (2) Experience has shown that things like this can always be expanded far beyond a definition. One can write about the uses to which this algorithm is put and about its mathematical properties. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - TenPound Hammer, look at this page. All those smart people write all this about this algorithm, and we're supposed to be impressed by your inability to see how it could be done? Stop exerting so much effort to embarrass yourself. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep per [35] etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Realistic-looking anything in computer graphics is a challenge that has been attacked for the last 40-50 years, and remains challenging to this day. linas (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see absolutely no reason to delete this. — foxj 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be many sources of expansion for this article, e.g., [36]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it needs expanding. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have been found. Dream Focus 23:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep clear-cut case. Notable. Sources cited. Informative. Everything we look for in a Wikipedia article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with several reliable sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no current valid deletion rationale. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:POINT nom by editor who appears ro disagree with having stubs on Wikipedia. This issue can be taken up at the appropriate place with the community. Eau (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources indicate this is a notable concept. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worley noise is one of the most used coherent noise algorithms. It is used in many 3d programs including blender and 3dsmax. Also, there are lots of resources for Worley noise on the internet if you know what to search. Other common names for Worley noise include Voronoi noise and cell noise. If it is simply a matter of expanding the article I would be willing to expand the article. I wrote the blog post at http://aftbit.com/cell-noise-2/Freethenation (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a valid rationale for deleting this. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 6 September 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image-based flow visualization[edit]

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

Deprodded by author with addition of sources, but I'm not convinced that this can be expanded beyond a mere dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to misunderstand our WP:DICDEF policy, which has nothing to do with the potential for expansion.
One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.
Warden (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think I'm misunderstanding it? I know that short and dicdef aren't synonymous. I'm saying that it's both. I fail to see any content here that is not a mere definition of the term, nor do I see any reason to believe that it will ever be anything more than a definition. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main paper has been cited 246 times [37] so clearly an important and notable technique. There is much scope for expansion of the article beyond a dicdef.--Salix (talk): 21:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there is certainly enough to make a larger article, it might be preferable for now to combine Texture advection Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection, and Image-based flow visualization together in a single article or posibly a section in Flow visualization‎. They are all variations on a theme and one reasonably size article might server the reader better than three stubs.--Salix (talk): 19:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From sources found already, plus just a quick look at Google book search results, this is something people in this field talk about. Dream Focus 14:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's perfectly obvious that this can be expanded far beyond its present state, which is already far more than a dictionary definition. Here is proof of that fact. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is part of a series of ten disruptive nominations for deletion, only one of which seem to have even a hint of any merit. This is basically just edit-warring spanning a series of articles created by a common author. linas (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly expandable, verifiable, and a good entry to Wikipedia..--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close to prevent more time wasting. A simple google scholar search before nomination would have left all these people hours for editing and improving articles just like this. Eau (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT to the nom. Bad-faith nomination, with dozens of reliable book and journal sources existing. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep per Paul. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:31, 3 September 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texture advection[edit]

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

Deprodded by author with source (see talk page) but I'm not convinced that this is worthy. This just seems like an un-expandable dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to misunderstand our WP:DICDEF policy, which has nothing to do with the potential for expansion.

“

One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.

”

Warden (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think I'm misunderstanding it? I know that short and dicdef aren't synonymous. I'm saying that it's both. I fail to see any content here that is not a mere definition of the term, nor do I see any reason to believe that it will ever be anything more than a definition. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we look at the helpful scholar link[38] handily provided by the afd templates it is quickly revealed that Texture advection is a topic with a lot of academic interest with some highly cited papers. While there is certainly enough to make a larger article, it might be preferable for now to combine this Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection, and Image-based flow visualization, which are all variations on a theme, together in a single article or posibly a section in Flow visualization‎.--Salix (talk): 19:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Easily passes WP:GNG. These articles are all from page one of the Google Scholar link above here. This topic is clearly well-beyond a dictionary definition. I've also added these sources to the article:

Laramee, Robert S.; et al. (2006). "Texture Advection on Stream Surfaces: A Novel Hybrid Visualization Applied to CFD Simulation Results" (PDF). Eurographics/ IEEE-VGTC Symposium on Visualization. The Eurographics Association. Retrieved September 2, 2012.
Jobard, Bruno; et al. (2000). "Hardware-accelerated texture advection for unsteady flow visualization". VIS '00 Proceedings of the conference on Visualization '00. IEEE Computer Society Press. pp. 155–162. Retrieved September 2, 2012.
Bousseau, Adrien; et al. (2007). "Video watercolorization using bidirectional texture advection". SIGGRAPH '07 ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 papers, Article No. 104. ACM. Retrieved September 2, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found proving its notable. Clicking Google book search at the top of the AFD shows even more results. Dream Focus 23:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's worthy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Total failure of WP:BEFORE, with hundreds of reliable sources right there on the GB and GS limks. -- 202.124.74.22 (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as logic dictates per above. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:POINT nom by editor. Eau (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:14, 3 September 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 delete as a blatant copyright violation under CSD G12 by Jenks24.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Satyatma Tirtha[edit]

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

No third-party references found to prove notability Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been moved to Satyatma Tirtha; if result is delete, current title and redirect should be deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from [39]. This edit removed a big swath of copyvio, but the remaining material is still a copyvio leaving nothing to salvage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 4 September 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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime Currency[edit]

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

Delete album recording does not meet notability guidelines at WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. New release as yet uncharted. Article for band does not exist. A9 declined by editor assuming band article exists, but the wikilink in article does not link to the band article, but to a band member. Cindy(talk to me) 09:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Abandoned Pools" merely seems to be an alias for Tommy Walter, as listed in this Allmusic bio, so a separate article on Abandoned Pools isn't needed. The album was just released on a notable label, so sources should be present within a day or two. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the article that Hammer provided, I think this AFD should be withdrawn and the article redirected to Tommy Walter. Thanks, Cindy(talk to me) 11:14, 1 September 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 Merge and Redirect to Women Airforce Service Pilots#WASP aviators. This seems to have sat for a few weeks without comment or relist, but the consensus seems to be clear that keeping some of the information is worthwhile. I merged a summary of Moss' service at the target page, as well as two of the sources (though one was the blog). Please follow behind and adjust the merged listing as appropriate; the sources are still in the history at the redirect, if necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annabelle Craft Moss[edit]

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

Being one of 1000+ WASP pilots in World War II isn't sufficiently exclusive to merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WASPs who were the first women in the US Air Force aren't notable aviators? So why do the Tuskegee Airmen merit a biography each? (Check the links in the bottom bar for the Tuskegee Airmen). The fact that she survived to give a comprehensive oral account of the experience is noteworthy in itself. A CGM, regardless of whether she got it as a member of a group or as an individual, as a foreigner, I'd think that would make an American citizen notable. Good grief.OttawaAC (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Hmm... she did win a Congressional Gold Medal, but the medal was technically awarded to the still living WASPs as a whole. Would this be something that could potentially be redirected to List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients? I'm kind of half-hearted on this. She won the award with the others but a random redirect to the list of recipients without any way of saying exactly why she's redirecting there is sort of useless. I thought I'd bring this up here because I know that the award will be something to mention. There's also the possibility that this could redirect to Women Airforce Service Pilots, since that's what she seems to be known for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CGM was awarded to the surviving, veteran WASP aviators according to the wording in a couple of sources, around 200 of them were each awarded a medal. The deceased WASPs, and the WASP as an organization, were not awarded the medals, or perhaps I'm misinterpreting those sources. Can a CGM be given to deceased persons? Is was also given to the Tuskegee Airmen.^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

Checked a couple more sources and I stand corrected, each individual WASP living or deceased was included. Still though, how many men, in a group or individually, have gotten a CGM? How many have WP biographies? How many women have gotten a CGM? How many have WP biographies? See how this bias thing works? Something about that ratio is a tad depressing.OttawaAC (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Women Airforce Service Pilots#WASP aviators. There's a list of various aviators on the page and this would be best served redirecting there. Moss did not individually win the Congressional Gold Medal, so I can't really justify her having an article all to herself based upon that criteria. Since she is mentioned in the WASP article (although I do admit wondering whether the list should be on there), this could be redirected there. But as an article all its own? No. She's completely amazing and what little I could find shows that she's probably one of the coolest little old ladies I'll never meet, but she just doesn't pass notability guidelines outside of her association with WASP.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to Women Airforce Service Pilots#WASP aviators. Individual fails WP:GNG, & WP:SOLDIER however there is verified content and the subject is a member of a notable group. Therefore, the verified content can be summarized down, merged into the aforementioned list, and a redirect left in the article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable as just one of 1000 WASPs so shouldnt really redirect. Certainly not an individual award of the Congressional Gold Medal which was awarded to the WASP as an organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S, M, R per Tokyogirl and RCLC. Redirects are cheap (cheaper than deletion, even) and not likely to be any other notable Annabelle Craft Mosses, so no need to have "reserved space", and redirecting avoids a recreation-bait redlink as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'S,M,R. Concur with tokyogirl and bushranger. Petebutt (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. She didn't personally receive the Congressional Gold Medal - the organisation of which she was a member did. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MilborneOne. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nametag in the photo here shows she went by the name Ann Craft. Maybe that's why we can't find enough info on Annabelle Craft Moss. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see much for Ann Craft other than an oral history,[40] which shows "she transported officers from one base to another". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S, M, R per above. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S, M, R I agree with tokyogirl and bushranger --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was the only female pilot on the base. This article helps address WP:BIAS. Djembayz (talk) 13:08, 24 September 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. -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 20:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional republic[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the words in this article are supported by the references. This article, in a best case scenario, may constitute original research, however, more likely constitutes no research at all and is pushing a pop culture meme that doesn't exist in any normal understanding of political science.

(1) The line "In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be separated into distinct branches" is not supported by the reference and should be deleted. The citation refers to a short essay on the Kids Page of the Truman library in which the United States specifically is addressed (also, the Kids Page on a library website is probably not up to snuff in terms of the academic validity of sources).

That's true and but it is nonetheless produced by the Truman Library though taking information from a primary source (if we consider the Truman Library in that context) would constitute original research. Not a great reference (and I contend there are better ones) but probably not a deal killer. I certainly don't think it falls into the category of "made-up". Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said this was "made-up." Please make the choice not to derail the discussion through distraction and obfuscation. BlueSalix (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said, "this entry is based on sources that have been made-up" and I argued this particular reference did not fit into that category. I'm not trying to "derail" anything and you should assume good faith as I have by discussing the issues rather than lumping your nomination in with the other politically motivated attacks on this article in the past. I have assumed from the start that you have made this nomination to better WP but attacking editors rather than addressing issues does not help your case. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stalwart. The words "based on" do not indicate a holistic intent, but that a cursory review of sources indicated they were fiction and I stand by that. I never indicated this *specific* source was "made-up," I was clear that this particular one communicated erroneous intent. I stand by the statement that the entry is "based on" fictionalized sources - one source ("The Christian and American Law") referenced a passage on a page of a book that did not exist (I'm glad you found it on a different page), another quoted Karl Marx, when there's no evidence he made the quote referenced, etc. Can we agree to dial it down a notch with regard to trying ot catch each other in "GOTCHA!" moments? Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I. You used the term "made up" to describe references (without specifying which ones) and I simply contended that this reference did not fit into that category. I have been, from the start, happy to accept that the article needed improvement and that references could be improved (and said so in my very first note). It took only a couple of minutes to find the quotes referred to by the original author, cite them properly and fix the relevant links. My suggestion (from the very start) was that this is what was needed, rather than an AfD prod. Given your want to insult people by suggesting they learn how to source properly or by sarcastically suggesting they have a "firm command of Google", I would have thought a quick Google search, on your part, to check if some original sources were mistakes rather than "fiction" would have negated the need for this AfD in the first place. That is, in fact, exactly what WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM suggests. Happy to "dial it down". Hell, happy to dial out altogether. No-one is trying to "get" anyone and the purpose of an AfD is to reach a consensus by discussing the merits of an article (and its sources) against WP:N. You made your points, I made mine, you accused me of "derailing" the discussion and followed that up with personal insults. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The line "that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic" has no source at all (and is not supported by any normal understanding of constitutional theory) and should be deleted.

I agree, it is unclear where this quote came from. So many mirror sites now quote WP that it has become unclear which sites are citing the original quote and which are a copy-paste of WP. If it is unsourced then it should be removed. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why you are having difficulty in making an affirmative statement that it is unsourced and have to fall-back to an ambiguous position of "if it is unsourced." The entry is easily viewable and the lack of citation for this passage is, likewise. BlueSalix (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, because I assume good faith - both with regard to the original article and with regard to your nomination. I don't think it is ambiguous to say that if something is unsourced, it should be removed. That's pretty clear cut - I can't find a source, you can't find a source and no-one else has offered to find a source. The original author has not commented as to what their source might have been. If it is unsourced it should be removed. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stalwart. I'm glad you agree this passage must be removed. BlueSalix (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(3) The line "Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population." refers to a book called "The Christian and American Law" (erroneously cited in the source as "Christian and American Law" but obviously the former title as the title "Christian and American Law" doesn't exist in WordCat). I have obtained this book and posted the cited page here - http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/6209/50725626.jpg - which clearly makes no mention of anything that would support the line in the entry.

That is almost word-for-word what that author says in that book - see this search. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is it, or is it not, on the page that is being cited in References? Because the page I posted - the page that is cited - contains nothing of the sort. Did you find a similar statement on a different page? This is rather aside of the fact anyway that the book - as cited - doesn't actually exist. I'm AGF that the book I discovered is the same one the editor intended and simply mistyped (what seems to be a disastrously common occurrence for this entry). Finally, a book produced by a small publisher that publishes books "for the spiritual needs of evangelical readers" (http://www.kregel.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=A12DB34B70B34EA28EA748A96CD5AEFE&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=A615A3BFB3EA496C83F0F4CFDCBE387D) and by an author who has no publishing credits in political science or law (aside from this) but who teaches at a law school that is not accredited by the ABA (Trinity Law School - http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/aba_approved_law_schools/in_alphabetical_order.html) cannot objectively meet the standards of WP:SOURCES. BlueSalix (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at... That quote appears in that book on page 101. I provided a link to the book on Google Books with search parameters to point to the page in question. If the original reference included a bad link (I think that is what you are suggesting), then feel free to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I also have no problem with you arguing that the source is not reliable or not independent. If that is your suggestion then we should have that discussion. But you suggested the book contained nothing that supported that line which is not accurate - that quote (word-for-word) appears in that book. Happy to have a discussion about the source itself. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stalwart. Page 101 is not the page originally cited in the references which is what I was addressing. I'm glad you changed it to correct it. Let's agree to delete it now since the source is invalid. Thanks BlueSalix (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you contend the source is invalid, as per WP:BURDEN, you are welcome to remove it. In making your decision, given your contention above, it might be worth noting that while Trinity Law School is not accredited by the ABA, it is, "accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar of California". I don't imagine this will alter your opinion of the source and that's perfectly fine. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Reference #7 is to page 5 in a book called "The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom." Page 5 is previewed at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Thirteenth-Amendment-American-Freedom-Constitutional/dp/0814782760/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346483432&sr=1-1&keywords=0814782760. On this page the words "constitutional republic" aren't mentioned once but the book is, nonetheless, used to support the passage: "Alexander Tsesis, in The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom: A Legal History says, to him, a constitutional republic means "a representative polity established on fundamental law, each person has the right to pursue and fulfill his or her unobtrusive vision of the good life. In such a society, the common good is the cumulative product of free and equal individuals who pursue meaningful aims."

Those words most certainly do appear - that is a direct quote from Preface | 5 - and can be read in the preview provided in your link. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a patchwork of words from the author, stitched together without the aid of ellipses, in such a way as to communicate an intent that does not exist. A critical evaluation of the passage reveals it is simply an aside, mentioned in passing, not an exploration or explanation of the term "constitutional republic." BlueSalix (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry but that quote appears word-for-word on the page in question. It's not a patchwork or a reinterpretation of a quote, it is a quote lifted directly from that page of that book. In the context of the article it was provided as someone's opinion or interpretation of Constitutional Republic and that is exactly the way it appears in the book. The quote begins, "Within the context of a constitutional republic, by which I mean...". Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stalwart. Quote marks indicate a verbatim recitation of cited text. Omissions of words within it require ellipses, provided those ellipses do not change the meaning by assigning a context that does not exist. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can't see that anything has been omitted, altered or misquoted. I would suggest the quote was, in fact, cut-and-pasted into the article by the original author. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The entry says "In "Outline of the Critique of Political Economy," Marx's stated that "All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than e.g. on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their 'constitutional republics' as well, only in another form." - a CTRL+F search of the full text of this treatise (located here: http://archive.org/stream/acontributiontot00marxuoft/acontributiontot00marxuoft_djvu.txt) does not find the claimed passage appearing in any of it.

No, that's right. But the passage, "The bourgeois economists have a vague notion that it is better to carry on production under the modern police, than it was, e. g. under club-law. They forget that club law is also law, and that the right of the stronger continues to exist in other forms even under their "government of law"." does appear. I contend this is a difference in translation and that "Government of Law" and "Constitutional Republic", though differently translated, are one in the same. I would need to see other translations (there may be some original research in there) but fundamentally I believe this is what the original author was referencing. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader of German I can tell you right now that this is absolutely not a question of translation differences. And it is distracting to this discussion for you to introduce that claim in the absence of an alternate translation that supports it. I don't mean to sound snippy, but simply conjuring "translation difference" out of the air is not a productive use of the space on this page. If you need to see other translations then check them before introducing this argument. Please don't simply dismiss a valid point with a vague note that, at some point in the undetermined and shortly to-be-forgot future, you might attempt to double-check this unverifiable quote but, in the meantime, it should be left up. BlueSalix (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know that is not at all what I said. Again, I am more than happy to assume good faith on the part of the original author and you. You said the passage did not appear word-for-word in the text, I agreed but stated that a very similar passage (uses many of the same words) did appear and that the difference may have been a matter of translating. I am more than happy to accept that what appeared in the article is not an accurate translation (or interpretation in any context) of the original text and even suggested that the difference may have been a matter of original research. If it is inaccurate or has been incorrectly or inaccurately translated or interpreted then that should be rectified. If the author has misinterpreted or misrepresented that passage then that should be rectified. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stalwart. Misquoting is not a synonym for misinterpretation. Quote marks indicate a verbatim recitation of cited text. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so that should be fixed either by removing the quotation marks (if it is not an accurate quote / translation of a quote - whether intentional or unintentional) or by introducing an accurate quote / translation of a quote. If having done that, the source does not support the assertion in the article then it should be removed. But again, all of these are things I think should have been addressed before an AfD prod. If you don't wish to address them before AfD then you should expect them to be discussed at AfD and your suggestion that such a discussion is "not a productive use of the space on this page" is entirely contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(6) This article has been nominated for deletion once before and achieved, not just consensus, but unanimous support, for deletion --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constitutional_republic. It's back.BlueSalix (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding item (6), the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional republic in 2005 was considerably different from the version that exists today. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ For the fact that at least half of the content in this entry can be documented as having been manufactured and is unrelated to the sources being cited, and the presumption that the limited number of contributing authors makes it reasonably assumable that this would be a trend discoverable in the rest of the sources were they to be closely examined, I vote Delete. BlueSalix (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote in the discussion itself. By nominating the article for deletion, it is already implied that you are voting delete. Doing it twice will just confuse the closer. Silver seren^C 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can understand the AfD nom, believe it was made in good faith and I think as the article stands a Delete argument could certainly be made. The term, though, outside of the US, has been and is fairly widely used and there are a number of sources which could be cited. Could the article do with improvement? Certainly. Is deletion justified? I contend, not. Part of the problem seems to be that the article is written from an entirely US perspective. Widened to include other countries and other political discussions in those countries, references can be found:

The Cambridge History of China - Chapter 5: A constitutional republic: the Peking government, 1916–28 by Andrew J. Nathan (Cambridge University Press, 1983)
United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy by Alex Epstein (Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 2008)
Democracy, Republic, Constitutional Republic, Federal Republic, or a Constitutional Federal Republic. What are we? by Sean Ham (Education & Liberty (blog), 2010)
Are We Losing Our Constitutional Republic? by Janet Levy (American Thinker, 2012)

That said, the last three do focus on the US. In addition, though, it's a term used by both the CIA (here) and the US State Department (here) to describe foreign governments. Surely those references and the fact that it is a term accepted for use by the US Government is enough to consider the term itself to be notable. The article certainly needs work but I don't think deletion is justified. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two of the sources you cite are blogs, which are not WP:IRS, are not acceptable sources and could never be incorporated into the entry. The other two simply have the words "constitutional republic" written in them as either titles or index box entries with no further explanation or exploration and could, as a result, also never be incorporated into the entry. In any case, to your more overarching point, I have to respond by noting that an entry can't remain active at Wikipedia when it contains quotations from books that don't actually exist in said books (IOW, have been made up/manufactured). If we only delete the offending passages we've left this entire entry with no sources and the entry itself, therefore, must further be deleted. This entry can't just sit around with a Cleanup tag when it is crediting authors with statements said authors have never made. This is a more serious issue than simply a poorly composed entry. To re-emphasize, this entry is based on sources that have been made-up. BlueSalix (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those sources were "made up" - I think you've made a couple of mistakes in your analysis of them (above). I accept that one of the links I provided is a blog (and said so when linking to it above). I'm also happy to have a discussion about the reliability of references from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (which I think is the other one you're putting in the blog category). The other two go into some detail about the concept of a constitutional republic; the article from American Thinker does so by juxtaposing this with actions the author contends are not in keeping with a Constitutional Republic. While this may be more of a "what a constitutional republic is not..." argument, that surely doesn't change its validity as a source. That aside, I said from the beginning that I thought a delete argument could be made and certainly if the sources cited are entirely fictional then that text should go (but I don't think they are, as outlined above). My suggestion was that with a bit of work (maybe quite a bit of work), the article could be fixed - that the term itself meets WP:GNG. I for one would be more than happy to put some effort into a clean-up. It might be worth also looking at:

America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy - text of a speech given by Daneen G. Peterson, PhD (2006)
We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy by Daniel Horowitz (RedState, 2011) - arguably a "blog" in the sense it doesn't publish offline but certainly not self-published in the same sense as other blogs.
America As a Constitutional Republic: When Can the President Kill? by Doug Bandow (Forbes.com, 2012) - which goes into some detail about the limits of a Constitutional Republic.
Our Constitutional Republic: Seeds of Birth - Seeds of Destruction by William J. Dell (AuthorHouse, 2011) - a book which clearly defines the scope of a Constitutional Republic and goes into some detail about the history of the concept and the ways in which the author believes the US has deviated from that concept.

I should also say that the validity (within the scope of political argument) of the term "Constitutional Republic" is one contested by left-wing and right-wing commentators alike. A quick google search will show that the argument, "America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy" (ironically the title of Dr Peterson's speech above) is widely used by right-wing commentators as an attack on the current President and his political program. As a result, some of those on the left would rather the term (as a political neologism) simply not exist (and this is reflected in historical arguments on the article talk page). Whether we like it or not, the term is used and is used by the highest levels of Government. Perhaps not in the same way as some commentators would like to use it but that is not really relevant.

I note you highlighted three particular passages which you believed needed work (on the article's talk page) then removed that discussion and posted this AfD nom. You should be commended for at least making an effort to fix the article before jumping straight to an AfD nom but perhaps giving more than 48 hours for people to respond to your concerns would have yielded better results. To be helpful I have responded to particular concerns above. Again, the article needs a clean-up but I think the problems are surmountable. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's great you've been able to "Google it" and find a lot of WP:USERGENERATED things about "constitutional republic." None of these meet the standards of reliable sources (see WP:USERGENERATED). Of the latest four "sources" you've found, 1 is from Forbes Sites (similar to CNN's iReporter user generated citizen journalism site), 1 is from a conspiracy website called "STOP THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION" [sic] that is apparently owned by the author, a third is a book from a vanity publisher (AuthorHouse) which does not meet WP:SELFPUBLISH ... at this point I stopped checking. It's clear you have a firm command of Google and will be able to produce an almost endless stream of social media sites, pay-to-publish books, and blogs to support your idea that this page should be left up, however, I would ask you make the choice not to continue to post these. Each time you do it requires people go through to check to see if they meet any minimal standard of source acceptability. As you know, it is easier to flood this page with unacceptable sources than it is for an editor to verify each one. I think you've made your point regarding the availability of sources on blogs, social media sites and vanity publishers and further comment at this time may not serve to advance this discussion but only distract it. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, your attempt to belittle and play the man rather than the ball is not very classy and is fundamentally contrary to the basic principles of WP. I think your branding of potential sources as "conspiracy website[s]" probably says more about why you launched this AfD in the first place than anything else. You basic argument hinged on the suggestion that the article was "based on sources that have been made-up" which is patently untrue. One of the main aims of AfD (and this function is promoted with "find sources" prompts) is to encourage editors to find potential sources and put them up for discussion, the quantum of which should allow consensus to be reached about whether an article meets WP guidelines or not. More than happy for you to critique potential sources but suggesting that editors not contribute to your AfD nomination isn't helpful. The fact that you don't like particular points of view does not invalidate them. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stalwart. I'm sorry you feel you're being belittled. I am not suggesting people refrain from introducing material with which I disagree, I am suggesting people refrain from introducing material that doesn't meet WP:SOURCE. You have announced your intent to edit the entry to include blogs, self-published books and posts from a conspiracy theory website called STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM. If you believe my requests for you not to engage in this behavior are a violation of WP:AFD, I suggest you raise the issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard. There's nothing more I can do to address your concerns if you believe this is valid material. Again, I'm sorry you're upset, however, the deletion page is not the correct forum to express that. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above - I have now fixed some of the reference links and have updated others. Will try to introduce some of the aforementioned links into the article when I have a spare few minutes. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC).Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT. I'm sorry for the all-caps, but I need to emphasize this point. If you start introducing sources like blogs, WP:SELFPUBLISH books and websites called STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM - as you've stated your intent to do - this whole maze is going to quickly become more undecipherable than it already is. As a courtesy to other editors, please don't touch the article with the "sources" you were able to "Google" until this AfD discussion has worked its way through. If you need help learning about WP:SOURCE please feel empowered to ask. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to belittle and insult editors because they are moving in a direction contrary to what is (clearly now) you particular political persuasion is unhelpful. From the very top of the AfD page - "[...] including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately". Suggesting others refrain from editing articles because they might introduce material you disagree with is entirely contrary to the fundamental basics of WP. After all that, I strongly suggest you start by assuming good faith. I would suggest that doing so from the start would have resulted in you trying to fix this page rather than trying to have it deleted.Stalwart111 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stalwart. I'm sorry you feel you're being belittled. I am not suggesting people refrain from introducing material with which I disagree, I am suggesting people refrain from introducing material that doesn't meet WP:SOURCE. You have announced your intent to edit the entry to include blogs, self-published books and posts from a conspiracy theory website called STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM. If you believe my requests for you not to engage in this behavior are a violation of WP:AFD, I suggest you raise the issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard. There's nothing more I can do to address your concerns if you believe this is valid material. Again, I'm sorry you're upset, however, the deletion page is not the correct forum to express that. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said you had attempted to and that it was unhelpful - it would take a lot more to make me "upset". It simply isn't a good way to go about consensus-building. It took only one comment from an editor with a different opinion of the AfD for you to suggest that putting alternate opinions was an attempt to "derail" your AfD and "not a productive use of the space on this page". You followed that up by sarcastically suggesting I might need help "learning about WP:SOURCE" and sarcastically suggesting I had a "firm command of Google" (all your own quotes). If you believe this is a constructive way to build consensus at this AfD then good luck to you - I would suggest you've done more than enough to ensure no admin will be able to wade through your insults to determine if consensus has been reached. Had you assumed good faith from the start (both with regard to me and with regard to the original author of the article in question) then I imagine we could have worked through most of the issues you raised with respect to the the original sources and could probably have done some collaborative work to determine if some new sources could be found. If nothing else, you were afforded general courtesy as a WP:NEWCOMER and I stated from the beginning that I believed this AfD had been raised in good faith. You have not done much since to justify that belief. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm sorry you're upset, however, the deletion page is not the correct forum to express that. Please limit your comments to the article. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be a blatant attempt to push POV and use non RS sources for political definition of the US federal government. I noticed that the article United States government changed the use of the term Representative democracy to constitutional republic and this does not appear to be accurate. The first source used by the Truman Library is a primary source, a children's edition (or page) and contains no authorship or way to verify the information...but more important is, it doesn't even use the term. This is clear synthesis and a non RS. Other sources may not meet threshold for criteria for use, but article lacks accurate and mainstream academic sources readily available--Amadscientist (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it is worth mentioning that the definition of the US form of government has never fully been defined and in all references I am seeing that refer to "Constitutional Republic" (in academic, peer reviewed book sources) appear to be written as opinion in their prose and leave a great deal of room for interpretation. As another editor stated this article is not really about the US government but about the form of government as established as a Republican. For this reason it is unlikely that the sources for a US form of "strictly interpreted" constitutional republic would be due weight in this article and attempting to interpret the sources outside their context may be viewed as a form of biased or advocacy editing. My reasoning for deletion is simple. This article is already being used for such advocacy changes in other US government articles and looks like it may have been created as a content fork.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is essential to Wikipedia, in my view, but this article consists of original research. The article can be rewritten, but needs to be properly sourced. I would say that this should be just a temporary deletion. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there probably can be an article on the topic -- Texas textbooks calls U.S. a 'constitutional republic' rather than 'democratic -- it seems a better approach to delete and let an article creator present a draft to DRV and request that it be moved to article space. Most news articles that use "Constitutional republic" in the article title are letters to the editor or opinions. However, two articles that might be used for the topic are Through the Lens of a Constitutional Republic and History gets conservative stamp in Texas textbooks Social studies curriculum calls U.S. a 'constitutional republic' rather than 'democratic.'. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fringe, POV-pushing article as written, based on a few obscure opinion sources. Fails WP:OR too with a fair bit of unsourced text interpolating between its meager references; the best example of this is the pargraph trying to prove--without any secondary sources--that "The notion of the constitutional republic originates with Aristotle's Politics". (What's next? An article called the greatest country, because there are sources like [41] [42] and I can find the phrase in Google Books too?) Tijfo098 (talk) 12:06, 10 September 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) 09:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus ArtWorks[edit]

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

Non-notable government-funded art project. The only reference with in-depth coverage is a interview-style article in a local paper that reads like it's trying to drum up clients. Not seeing anything substantial in google. PROD removed by IP with comment "The Delaware Division of the Arts, Delaware Media and significant museums consider this program notable. I discovered it through the state run arts organization that considers it a significant program that reaches the entire state of Delaware." Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the references are sufficient. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The parent organization, Boys & Girls Clubs of Delaware, doesn't even have an article, as it's just a state chapter of Boys & Girls Clubs of America, none of the state chapters of which have individual articles. The sourcing in the article is very thin: It seems to mainly consist of first-person sites or bare mentions (including links to first-person sites)—ref 3 is admittedly iffy, but given that the text is precisely reproduced here, one must assume that both derive from a first-person source. I can't see the text of the Wilmington News Journal piece in citation 7, but that would be only one presumably independent source; and I'm not seeing much elsewhere on the Web. This seems to be an article that has been furnished with a number of redundant citations, citations of sources that don't "address the subject directly in detail", and inappropriate in-text external links to make the topic's notability seem greater than the references warrant. Deor (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have listed three independent sources that are non-biased. Content Delaware, Smyrna- Clayton Sun Times, and Wilmington News Journal are all respected media. The fact that no one has written an article about the parent organization has nothing to do with the notability of the parent organization or this program under consideration. As we all know there are many things that have not been written about that should be, and it is not necessarily the case that a parent organization's visibility is a reflection on the program or subsidiary. The arguments here seem to point to the need for the community to contribute to the article, rather then to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillygrl (talk • contribs)
Keep Although I think it only just meets the requirements for notability and RS, the Wilmington News Journal article covers the organization, and the Smyrna/Clayton Sun-Times provides a second reference. I also added a reference from the Cape Gazette. Between them, these seem to meet the guideline. Celtechm (talk) 21:41, 4 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Bhatt (musician)[edit]

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

Appears to be the same Anand Bhatt whose article has been deleted four times already. Trivialist (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current sourcing does not show how Bahtt is notable and I found nothing better. "Considered for Nomination" is not nominated and is not sourced. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search reveals Anand Bhatt appearances in notable media (television, magazines, etc.). It is obvious he is a notable persona. 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anand Bhatt directly from Grammy.com: http://www.grammy.com/photos/anand-bhatt 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 3rd Party Article referencing Anand Bhatt and Latin Grammys: http://automotivehorizon.sulekha.com/anand-bhatt-arrives-in-lime-green-lamborghini-gallardo_12_2011_postedby_jayashankar-menon 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anand Bhatt on Telemundo Television: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNxWkmUpWJs - Instead of marking for deletion, we should be fair and request that more 3rd party citations are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Celebrity Cafe article mentioning Anand Bhatt: http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/masterchef-s-adrien-nieto-and-anand-bhatt-appear-indulge-la-chocolate-festival-02-07-2012 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:BASIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:BAND. 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:MUSBIO and WP:MUSICBIO.99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:ANYBIO. 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Parker Guitars lists Anand Bhatt as an official FEATURED ARTIST: http://www.parkerguitars.com/Signature-Artists/artist-index.html 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the HMMA Awards site- lists Anand Bhatt amongst other celebrities on pages 2 and 3: http://www.hmmawards.org/2011program.pdf 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Silicon India News lists Anand Bhatt has one of the Top 5 Indians in Hollywood: http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Top_5_Indians_in_Hollywood_to_look_out_for-nid-87984-cid-1.html 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SMN News, a popular rock music site, discusses Anand Bhatt & Anand Clique along with God Forbid: http://www.smnnews.com/2010/05/01/god-forbid-dallas-coyle-teaming-up-with-anand-bhatt-of-anand-clique/ 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR AND WP:CREATIVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is this Hollywood's XXX files: Anand Bhatt blows hot! about his porn career. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "keep" votes above were posted by 99.99.174.248, whose edits all involve adding Anand Bhatt to other articles. I don't have a log-in but my input/comments are still quite valid per WP guidelines. Secondary articles show legitimacy of notabililty 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the links posted:

The Grammy.com link is to a photo of Bhatt with the caption, "Anand Bhatt arrives to the 12th Annual Latin GRAMMY Awards at the Mandalay Bay Events Center in Las Vegas on Nov. 10," which only establishes that he was at that awards ceremony.
The Automotive Horizon article is a press release for Las Vegas Exotic Rentals, who provided him with a car for the 2011 Latin Grammy Awards. It also says that he is the "first Indian American to be considered for a Latin Grammy"—but is that the same as being nominated, or is this an earlier step?
The YouTube link is to an appearance on Buenos Dias Miami, which I'm guessing is a local television program.
The CelebrityCafe article merely says Bhatt is a "worldwide rock star" and "was recently inducted into the Latin Grammys," which I assume means he's a member of the organization that awards Latin Grammys.
The description of him on the Parker Guitars page (cached; all of the feature artists links on the site currently 404) is vague and doesn't specifically establish notability, other than "his GRAMMY recognized music"—which may or may not be equivalent to Grammy-nominated or Grammy winning.
The HMM Awards link is to a program for the Music in Media Awards & Conference, and lists him as a "celebrity host," but only identifies him as "International rock artist Anand Bhatt," which could mean any number of things, but is not inherently notable.
The SiliconIndia article is title "Top 5 Indians in Hollywood to look out for" (emphasis added), and notes, "He has been seen on television numerous times walking the GRAMMY red carpet as an award consideree and an academy voting member. Anand Bhatt is the first Indian-American to be inducted into the Latin Grammy's (Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences)." [sic] So he's a member of the Latin Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which is cool and all, but doesn't automatically make one notable.
The SMN News article says Bhatt's band Anand Clique "was on the first round Grammy ballot for 'Best Metal Performance'," which, again, is cool, but doesn't automatically make one notable. (I'll give 99.99.174.248 credit for linking to an article which describes Bhatt as "[u]nder a veil of self-importance" and Anand Clique's video "truly awful.")

Though that Times of India article, if true, is kind of amazing. Trivialist (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to question if they actually did any fact checking or swallowed his story whole. And how much is try and how much is the story he's trying to sell. Any sign of Wild West at the AVNs? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grammy.com does not post pictures on their website of peope if they were not Notable. Furthermore, not anyone can walk the red carpet and get their picture taken. Only the notable can. 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:BIO. 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivialist's comments actually support that this person meets WP:BIO as well. 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article has been updated with new and improved sources 99.99.174.248 (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, 99.99.174.248, you can only vote once. Besides, it's obvious you're either Anand Bhatt or connected to him somehow. Trivialist (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a reminder, these aren't votes. The decision is made by consensus and people can offer as much evidence to support their !vote as they like. The multiple items inserted by 99.99.174.248 (who is strongly encouraged to create an account), should have been encapsulated into one !vote, but just because they entered them as multiple items doesn't give them additional weight in the formation of the consensus. Also, I encourage asking if someone is the subject of or related to the subject of the article instead of accusing them. Please remember that WP:AGF is a fundamental rule here and suspicions don't count - evidence does. I'll do some of my own research and cast a !vote here soon. Thanks Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 20:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt. Unfortunately, saying over and over and over again that someone is notable doesn't make it so. Opinions don't count, policies do and 99.99.174.248 would be well advised to provide an argument to the claims of MUSICBIO notability and the like. It's not sufficient to just make a declarative sentence and leave it at that. Based on the citations above, I can't see how notability has been established. Here is my reasoning:

The entire line of references to the Grammys, including this and this are unpersuasive because everything says he's been "considered" for a grammy. What evidence is there for someone being "considered for nomination"? That's patent nonsense. Any song or artist might be considered by the academy for nomination... and that doesn't make you notable. You're either nominated or you're not. I can find no reference to a Latin Grammy nomination for this person, nor any evidence to support the claim that he was actually inducted into the Latin Grammys other than his own press releases, which are not admissible for this purpose as they are not independent.
Despite his website and puffery claims of being "world famous" and an "international star", I can't seem to find any notable and reliable music chart (e.g. Billboard) where he has produced a substantive hit record.
I don't consider TheCelebrityCafe.com a reliable source, so I disregard that as evidence of notability
The HMMA reference was an announcement of an upcoming appearance, clearly disqualified as a source of notability. If the press had covered his appearance there, that would have helped establish notability.
I do not consider the SiliconIndia article noteworthy as there is no reputation of fact checking in this media outlet.
The only indication of even minor notability is the porn career seemingly undertaken by this individual. The Times of India is traditionally accepted as a reliable source, though AVN shows him as primarily a writer of articles and as a cast member of one movie called The Prisoner (NSFW) though there is reference to the Wild West here (also NSFW). Per the WP:PORNBIO this actor is not notable as he has not achieved even one of the criteria under that policy. I encourage 99.99.174.248 to review WP:BIO and remember that having been photographed or mentioned or even recording a song or porn film is not sufficient notability. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:52, 7 September 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LantixPro[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 1 September 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) 03:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny Christian School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable school that has no sources. Google turned up with no hits ether Dch eagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 03:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Copyvio of THIS. Piece lists K-12, which would normally be a keep, but the official site link is 404, there are virtually no traces on the internets, and the article is a copy vio. No prejudice against proper recreation. Carrite (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content is mirrored from the article, not the other way around, as indicated by the footer. G12 does not apply. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be as it may the page still needs to be deleted Of all the Google hits I get there all for the Destiny Christian School in Del City, Oklahoma and not for this one.--Dch eagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 00:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't find reliable source evidence this school exists. I am curious what the editors at the first AfD found for keeping the article. A search of ed.gov gets a K-12 school in Oklahoma and a K-8 school in New York State. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 2 September 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) 03:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groin attack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has never been an article that reflects particularly well on us. As stated at its first AfD, it was started as a joke article linked from Steven Seagal. I wouldn't usually nominate an article that had passed two AfDs, but they were both from 2006. If you were around then, you may remember how different standards were back then (n.b. WP:AADD didn't exist the first time and had just been created the second). I thought it's worth taking a look at the article again. Many of the keep votes back then weren't especially serious (not that the delete votes were much better).

This whole article is a bit of a WP:SYNTH problem. Not that we invented the concept of a groin attack, but the article is basically just an indiscriminate collection of facts about attacks to the groin. It's very poorly referenced because there's not much to say in WP:RS about groin attacks. The stringing together of some physiological information, mention of its use in YouTube comedy, and a biblical reference just add up to a sloppy, amateurish effort that really isn't encyclopedic. At best, it could be a paragraph at Strike (attack). I'll leave the issue alone if consensus is that the 2006 AfDs were rightly decided. --BDD (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic in the same way Effect of objects shoved up the nose would not be an encyclopedic topic, even if footnoted with 57 newspaper articles about things shoved up people's noses. Grumpy bastard note: I hate the Wikipedia concept of "Synthesis," which is even dumber than the ideas of "verifiability not truth" and "reliable sources." Every article on WP uses "synthesis" in greater or lesser degree. It's just a "crime" wheeled out as a convenient excuse to deep six unencyclopedic topics like this... Carrite (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things being stuck up the nose is covered in detail in encyclopedias such as Medline and Rochester U.. We cover the topic at foreign body. Warden (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Judging from the book references one can find, most of them looking germane, it seems a legitimate topic in the context of martial arts. I also agree with the first part of Carrite comment (that is, every artice on WP is some kind of synthesis), but not with the second (circular WP:UNENCYC non-argument). --Cyclopia ^talk 10:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that reliable sources have nothing to say about this topic is testicular. See, for example, this, that, and more. Warden (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have not researched yet, but the effect that a kick on the balls has on a man is perhaps the most notable pain a man can experience with little effort from the attacker. And though not very relevant, I must link this to make all men cringe.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH, not properly referenced, not encyclopedic. WP is not a junkyard. GregJackP Boomer! 15:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUNK is not a policy nor even a guideline. Our actual editing policy is that imperfect drafts are fine and that we should develop them, not delete them. Warden (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I said that WP:JUNK was a policy, nor a guideline. I believe that it was clear that I thought that the article was crap and that it is my opinion that we should blow it up. In any event, my first three points were that it is WP:SYNTH, not referenced, and not encyclopedic, none of which have been addressed by the inclusionist argument. GregJackP Boomer! 16:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH is combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". You don't state what this synthetic proposition is and, in any case, are simultaneously claiming that the article doesn't have references so that is an illogical self-contradiction. And the stuff about junk/crap/blow is just rubbish. Warden (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its not just a definition, its detailed information. Groin attacks are mentioned in the old testament even. References existed to prove it is covered in places. This is no different than the many types of punches that have their own articlesPunch_(combat)#Basic_types as does various types of kicks. Notable combat moves, and not just those in professional sports, have their own articles. Are those who wish to delete this and not similar articles, doing so because they believe it is somehow less encyclopedic than the others, or because they just personally don't like it, considering such things beneath them? Dream Focus 16:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Good topic.Any real criticisms here are pointers to editing, not reasons to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not opposed to a redirect and a bit of a merge to somewhere suitable. But there are more important things to do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with those who say the article needs work. As written, it is poorly sourced. However, as others have mentioned, there are sources available and this article can be salvaged if someone wants to put in the effort. Papaursa (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the fact its covered in hundreds of sources. I guess as Dream says some will consider this attack beneath them. Delete voters should keep in mind that just beacause they might be 6"+ elite fighters well trained in noble arts like boxing, not everyone is like that. By definition, over 3 billion of the earths population is of below average strenght, and may need to use this sort of attack to defend themselves. Its almost sexist to delete this sort of article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hundreds of sources" - WP:BIGNUMBER. As for the rest of your comment, please refrain from personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DreamFocus. Sufficiently sourced. Topic may be vaguely amusing to some (such as this blogger[43]), but is nevertheless an encyclopedic topic. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 8 September 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) 03:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poplectual[edit]

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

Unused and unsourced neologism. PROD removed without rationale. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search turns up only couple of tweets from the coiner, dated 15 Jul 12. —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ----> Carrite (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete; Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. Ironholds (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:ONEDAY. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 4 September 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 This was already tagged for speedy deletion, so I'm not clear on why it was listed here. Speedily deleted for CSD#a7 and CSD#G10 Dloh cierekim 02:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Sundberg[edit]

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

I've taken a look at the internet, and I didn't find any sources to prove notability, so I think that Erik isn't notable. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is neither notable, nor is its tone and style appropriate for the encyclopedia. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 September 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 Internet Icon. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lana McKissack[edit]

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

Non-notable youtube personality. All the refs are to youtube or IMDB. Coverage on IMDB coverage is unusually comprehensive, because she uses it as her CV. What notability there is rests on coming runnerup in a reality tv show (which is explicitly covered by WP:REALITYTV as an argument to avoid) and two awards (a non-notable scholarship and best film at a very minor film festival). The only thing trawling though google finds is this blog interview. That's just not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. It's not a tv show. Awards are not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Tokyogirl below. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her credits to date do not appear to satisfy WP:ENT, and I'm unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 04:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG with the lack of WP:RS. Another Internet Icon contestant(s?) being AfD'd is The Fu Music (at WP:Articles for deletion/The Fu Music), as well as Brothers Riedell at WP:Articles for deletion/Brothers Riedell. Zappa O Mati 00:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internet Icon. What she seems to be most notable for is the Internet Icon show. There aren't any reliable sources that show that any of her previous acts or performances have been notable enough to warrant an article. I did manage to find mention of her being invited to perform at the 2000 Olympics, but it was as part of a group and not a separate invitation.[44] Even then I can't find anything that proved that she actually performed or that the performance was notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-signing my comment, I must have put five tildes instead of four.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 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.

^ Tillinghast, KJ. Kittyhawks. KJ Tillinghast. p. 375. ISBN 9781463764456.
^ Nick Wynne, Richard Moorhead (2010). Florida in World War II: Floating Fortress. The History Press. pp. n.p. ISBN 9781596299290.
^ http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123194315. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] Tillinghast, KJ. Kittyhawks. KJ Tillinghast. p. 375. ISBN 9781463764456.

[2] Nick Wynne, Richard Moorhead (2010). Florida in World War II: Floating Fortress. The History Press. pp. n.p. ISBN 9781596299290.

[3] ttp://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123194315. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]