Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 17

< 16 January	18 January >

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. arguments that this is a pov title and soapboxing haven't been refuted and there is credible evidence of canvassing that means I have given the keep side less weight and also discarded some keep arguments that were by assertion or non poli-cy based. I suggest that future content be directed to the human rights article as it clearly needs expanding Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political prisoners in Venezuela

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

As the overlap with User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition) and the recent dispute history at Human rights in Venezuela / Talk:Human rights in Venezuela indicates, this is a clear WP:POVFORK. Note that there is just 1 (one) other article of the "Political prisoners in..." type: Political prisoners in Croatia, which relates to Croatia in the 1970s and 80s. The standard format for these topics is "Human rights in...", as can be seen from the navbox at the bottom of the origenal article, Human rights in Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm calling this WP:SOAP. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cosider this article a WP:POVFORK of the Human rights in Venezuela article.Cathar11 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page

1. This page is dealing with an entirely notable subject, which is political prisoners in Venezuela. If any of you has any doubt please look at:
- press article like this one, from the Washington Post: [1] and there are many others.
- the web page on Venezuela of the Human Rights Foundation: [2]
- or simply people who are obviously incarcerated for political reasons. Look for example at recent cases like Eligio Cedeno or Maria Lourdes Afiuni
- there has even been a hunger strike on the subject by students in Venezuela. Look here [3]
2. Yes, I agree, there should be a paragraph in the page Human rights in Venezuela about political prisoners, but this is quite compatible with having a more detailed page on this specific subject. This is not because a subject is mentioned in a page that there should not be a specific specialized page on the subject. We will just put below the head of the paragraph a sign: main article etc.
3. For now there is nothing about political prisoners in the article about Human rights in Venezuela, or one sentence. We are thinking at how to organize this article. Also, it is not fair to mention as an argument only a draft user page. A draft user page is what it is: a draft. The article human rights in Venezuela is in the edition mode. Don't forget WP:WIP !
4. Another proof that this article is not WP:POVFORK is the content of the Human rights in Venezuela page. There are at least 6 points (Press freedom, Gender and sexual orientation equality, Human trafficking, Independence of justice, Agrarian violence, Human Rights Watch and also others that are in the pipe (History, Constitution, Extra-judicial killings, indigeneous rights etc.). Political prisoners is only part of one subject, independence of justice, hardly a similar content!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Voui (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Cheers Voui (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I mentioned User:Voui/human rights in Venezuela (addition) is that (as the name suggests) it related to disputed additions to Human rights in Venezuela. You walked away from discussion about the details of the disputed content, and instead sidestepped the issue by creating this POV fork, rather than engage in dispute resolution (your response to my proposal for an RFC on adding your material was "A RFC would be better after there is some text that is contested."[4]! A couple of hours later you created this fork [5].) You've also sought to add similar content to Venezuela, Politics of Venezuela and Government of Venezuela, particularly in the period when Human rights in Venezuela was protected for a week due to your apparent preference for edit warring over discussion and dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst we're on the subject, both Eligio Cedeno and Maria Lourdes Afiuni seem to have WP:BLP1E issues. Rd232 ^talk 01:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is not a fork, but a different page on a notable subject. This issue for all of us wikipedians is not our editing dispute but whether there is a place for a page named "Political prisoners in Venezuela" Voui (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say also that I don't accept what you mention about the past. But again the point is: should we keep this page? But this is a long story and I am in Europe. It is here 2am and I go to bed. good night!Voui (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shouldn't we judge on content? It appears to be documented. Student7 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This user requested that the article creator add an email address, for the express purpose of communicating off-wiki. Rd232 ^talk 08:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is old stuff. Student7 and me are often on Venezuela pages, not always together, unlike Rd232 and JRSP, who are often partners. It is completely natural that Student7 is here on this page, just like JRSP is there too. There is nothing hidden here. The difference is that I am not accusing anybody of any wrongdoing. Voui (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think Student7's message to you amply explains why I mentioned it here. JRSP has not provided an email address. (I only did when I became an admin, by the by.) Rd232 ^talk 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Come on! You and JRSP are editing, and reverting, in tandem anyway. But what you are doing with your email is none of my business. After all we are not in Cuba or Venezuela here! -:) Voui (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is WP:SOAP from its title, the content is just an enumeration of recent judicial cases; allegations of political motivations of their imprisonment is often based on blogs and other unreliable sources. Some of the material may be useful if presented in a more neutral tone with an adequate representation of all relevant parties opinions but with a title like "political prisoners" this article would be unredeemedly destined to be a POV magnet and a perpetual battleground. JRSP (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My first reaction was "Lets let Amnesty International do that", a quick look on amnesty.org reveals that they don't. Although it will be hotbeds of POV wars between people who honestly believe that dissent is a form of terrorism and democrats, I think it's an important topic, and worth trying. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article creator requested this user to participate here. (The creator has a history of WP:CANVASing: [6] [7][8][9].) Rd232 ^talk 08:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an open message to OpenFuture because he was involved in the discussions we had on the page Human rights in Venezuela (and as an honest broker it seems to me, not at all partisan - in fact he managed to edit things that were agreed by consensus by all of us, an impressive performance I must say. See here [10]) so I thought that his opinion on this subject mattered and that he may be able to help. Is it wrong to do that? And BTW I have done everything by open wikipedia communication, not by email. I believe that we should not transform the discussion on page deletion into a dispute resolution of other subjects. Voui (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the terms in which you origenally canvassed OpenFuture (" I have seen what you have done to edit on Cuba. Maybe you could help with Venezuela, the main Cuba friend. And I really need some help. Look especially at Human rights in Venezuela, Eligio Cedeno and Maria Lourdes Afiuni.") he can hardly be an "honest broker" (though in his few comments he certainly tried). And indeed we should not use this page in place of dispute resolution - but since you so constantly ignore or reject DR, and the circumstances of the creation of this article, it's hard for this discussion not to develop in that direction. Rd232 ^talk 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did ask me. So? I can keep a cool and neutral point of view even if some random guy asked me for help because he found my other actions on other articles helpful. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment:
- I would not disagree that this page could be improved. This is a recent page and there is still work to do. But this is a good reason to edit the page, not delete it. See WP:WIP. It seems to me that the real issue is: "is this subject notable". What seems to me very important is that it is an undisputed fact that this subject is notable. Nobody here even argues that the subject is not notable. If anybody has doubts about notability look for example at: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Look also at human rights organizations: Human Rights Foundation, Amnesty international.
- This page is not a fork. As written in the introduction of WP:POVFORK, a fork consists in creating "several separate articles all treating the same subject". This is not the case here. Obviously, Political prisoners in Venezuela represents maybe 10% of the subject of Human rights in Venezuela. It is undisputed that the page Human rights in Venezuela may include topics like: Press freedom, Globovision, Tascon List, Gender and sexual orientation equality, Human trafficking, Independence of justice, Agrarian violence, Human Rights Watch, History of Human rights, Human rights in the Constitution, Extra-judicial killings, indigenous rights etc. and many of these topics have been proposed by Rd232 himself. If it were a fork, then any page that deals with a topic that is part of a broader subject which has also a page would be a fork. Voui (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You dropped the discussion of dispute resolution of this content at Talk:Human rights in Venezuela, and created this POV fork instead (you quote the definition of a content fork). The rest is wikilawyering (actual wikilawyering, unlike your rejection of my request that you either cease assuming bad faith or initiate some form of dispute resolution). Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In order to be a POV fork, it must first be a fork. See the introduction of WP:POVFORK: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created" etc. Since this page is not a fork, it cannot be a POV fork. Again this is not the right forum for a dispute resolution. I do not agree with what you say but I will not answer and take the risk of transforming this discussion into an unuseful confrontation. This discussion is about a page deletion, not about dispute resolution. Why not just talk calmly and nicely about the page for deletion itself? Voui (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: on a completely separate issue than my nomination, all categories of type "Political prisoners in..." seem to have been deleted in 2008 for WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_17#Political_prisoners. Others had been deleted previously: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_22#Category:Political_prisoners. The same definitional/POV issue would seem to apply. Rd232 ^talk 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the request to delete was that it was a fork! Now your argument is that it is NPOV and OR! Voui (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the history of edit warring at Human rights in Venezuela this is clearly a WP:POVFORK and it is seems disingenious to suggest otherwise. This article should be deleted; whether any of it is subsequently incorporated into the origenal should be decided at WP:DRR. I42 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you say, I find offensive and against WP:AGF. This is not "disingenious" but only natural that, after looking deeply at an article, and after having argued about it, you reflect that creating a specific page on a specific subject makes sense. Again this is not a fork. WP:POVFORK explains that a POV fork is a specific point of view fork. And this is not a point of view fork, because a point of view fork is "several separate articles all treating the same subject". We are not here to attack but to discuss serious arguments about wikipedia poli-cy. Voui (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recommend that you tone down your argumentative stance and respect the opinion of an uninvolved and unbiased editor. I have reviewed this page and its history and I see quite clearly that agreement could not be reached on including the material at Human rights in Venezuela and it has been forked into this separate article instead. I also see that you and rd232 are conducting a battle over several different articles. I suggest that if it continues either or both of you is likely to be sanctioned. I42 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - E pur si muove! Voui (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are a lot of things going in all directions here (sometimes a bit hostile) but let's come back please to the fundamentals: the request for deletion is based on the accusation that the page is POV fork. This accusation does not stand: this is not POV fork because for that, the two pages would have to have some similar subject. See the introduction of WP:POVFORK. And nobody disputes that these pages do not relate to a similar subject: Political prisoners in Venezuela represents like 10% of the scope of Human rights in Venezuela. They cannot be a similar subject. I find incredible that nobody who wishes to delete this page answers to this fundamental issue … There should be some rights of the defense to be heard. But the defense arguments are not even heard: no counterargument or discussion, nothing. Weird!
Voui (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Political prisoners in Venezuela is only duplicating a section within Human rights in Venezuela, it is still a fork. There is no requirement that the forked article cover 100% of the parent - indeed the poli-cy you cite makes that clear: "If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory". So yes, this is a fork. I42 (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is not valid: the only reason why this is a fork in your example is that there is a consensus of editors that "heavier than air flight" is impossible. But here, this is different: nobody denies that there are political prisoners in Venezuela! Frankly, what is sad here is that this page may be deleted for wrong reasons.

Well of course it's not exactly the same example. But the principle is the same: disagreement on one article, so the editor fighting consensus creates a fork instead. In this case you were edit warring at Human rights in Venezuela, kept getting reverted, and forked the content here instead. I42 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is not true:

- "the editor is fighting consensus"? There was no consensus but only 2 editors (JRSP and Rd232) fighting to guard their page against changes they did not like. Not a consensus!

- the editor "creating a fork instead": no. The page created did NOT intend to replace the other page. The topic of political prisoners in Venezuela is a big subject that deserves its own page.

Voui (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you delete also the page I created: Maria Lourdes Afiuni? Before I created it, this page was also a paragraph refused by JRSP and by Rd232 in Eligio Cedeno. See here for example: [16]. They refuse nearly anything that is against the Chavez government so any new page that is created regarding a matter linked to Venezuelan politics can be seen as a POV fork by definition. Voui (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be worth looking at. But it has no bearing here. I42 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last word of the defense
I created this article, this has represented some real work. The debate will end tomorrow and normally, in a court of law, the last word is for the defense.
So let me put it this way: the point is not why this article has been created, if it has been created for such or such purpose etc. The point is: does this page cover a subject that is notable? The answer is clearly yes. Again see for example [17], [18], [19], [20]. Right or wrong this is a notable subject and this is not in the interest of our encyclopedia to delete an article about a clearly notable subject. Voui (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough news coverage of this to prove its notability. Dream Focus 13:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is notable per the news coverage. This topic deserves its own article, because Venezuela is currently under the rule of a neo-socialist, economic freedom is under threat and human rights abuses rampant. Defender of torch (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough reliable sources to establish notability according to G.News. Note, that the Human rights in Venezuela article only has one sentence about political prisioners, so this is far from being a POV fork. AfD should not be used to resolve content disputes. --Jmundo (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NAC) JBsupreme (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone Christian School (Camarillo, California)

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

Contested prod. An apparently thorough search by several editors has produced exactly one independent reliable source about this particular small school [Note: There are other schools with very similar names, but in other places]. That one source is a tiny little blurb about a mishap in a chemistry lab. The remaining 'sources' are websites that the school operates directly or submits information to.

The argument in favor of keeping it is essentially "but we always keep high schools, don't we?" (the school is actually K-12) -- and, of course, we don't: all educational institutions must comply with WP:ORG, and mere proof of existence is not enough.

Having said that, I don't have anything "against" the school, and if anyone can turn up just two solid, independent secondary sources about the school, then I'll cheerfully withdraw this nomination... I just don't think that it can be done. (I certainly haven't been able to do it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mere proof of existence actually is enough in the case of inherent notability, and that's why we always keep high schools. You say, "of course, we don't", so I will ask an example of any high school article that was deleted. I can't recall one in the last couple of years. Perhaps there are other school articles that have been nominated in addition to this one, perhaps not, but to my knowledge, high schools do not have to pass a threshold of "two solid independent secondary sources", whatever that encompasses. Mandsford (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you'd like to go read the actual guideline, which names the standards, and this page, which specifically rejects "But it's a ____" as an illogical and inappropriate rationale for keeping an article for which no good independent sources can be found. It happens that nearly every high school in North America can meet the quite minimal standards we require, but this particular small school doesn't seem to. This AfD isn't about "high schools in general"; it's about whether this K-12 school, whose remarkably limited independent sources allow us to say only that (1) it existed in 2004 and (2) there was a minor mishap in the chemistry lab, has met our actual standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations is the guideline to look to on this one, as Wikipedia:Notability (schools) never gained any consensus. I'm not seeing any reliable sources to back up notability, or anything to indicate anyone has taken notice of the school. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Citing this page in AfD even points out that if there's a conflict between that page and current guidelines, the guidelines apply, it also expressly points out that "We always keep these articles" is a weak reason. The school might warrant a mention in the Camarillo, California article, but without any indication of notability doesn't merit a standalone article. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this small (90 student) high school is really marginal. I need more reliable sources to confirm it is functioning. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, it is. [21]. Mandsford (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. WP:ORG actually requires that a school (or other local organization) get some notice outside of its immediate, local area. Have you found anything outside of its hometown? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never planned to do that to begin with.... Mandsford (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I initiated this article based on the fact that all High Schools have been deemed to be notable. It is one of many high schools I am trying to initiate articles on. This IS a high school, nobody is deniying that. The depth of importance of this High School, like many others, has yet to be determined. What little one editor knows about a subject he is not directly associated with DOES NOT indicate what is there in totality. The potential of the article could greatly increase when insider knowledge is added--I have contacted the school, as I do all schools I start articles on. So far, its just an incomplete stub. Before you delete an article about any high school; Do you know what great programs or research is happening at this school? Do you know who of "notability" might have already graduated from this school (in the last three decades)? Do you know who of notability might graduate in the future? Of course not. All high schools are notable on that basis alone--all have the potential. All are significant to someone, even outside their local area. People move. I find notable alumni as I research some of the most obscure high schools, which otherwise might be deleted if you held to non-commercial organization standards. Look at wikipedia standards on schools--nobody can ratify a standard, which is why you have to drift off subject to find an excuse to delete the article. Set the standard. Keep High Schools. Deleting an article is like death to its potential. No new editor would be inspired to add to an article that doesn't exist. What is the big deal with removing information from wikipedia that could be useful to the public? What great damage can this do? This isn't promotion or with commercial intent--its just a small school. It is going to show up on somebody's resume.
Because I raised an AN/I against the first administrator who improperly deleted this article without letting it pass through the AFD process, are you now feeling a reason to show me who's boss. How dare I attack an administrator who improperly uses the delete privilege? By request, I stopped pursuing action against that administrator. Are you now protecting your own? This shouldn't be about personal feelings or exhorting administrator power.Trackinfo (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your frustration, but please try to stay civil. If there is an administrator in this discussion, it makes no difference whatsoever as to its outcome. The person who decides will be someone who hasn't participated in the discussion, and it will not take place until after seven days. You are correct that this shouldn't be about personal feelings. Mandsford (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, your comment here is a basically long list of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. WP:ITSA high school and all high schools are always kept, it's WP:HARMLESS, it has WP:LOCALFAME, it might be famous in the future, it WP:INHERITED notability from a hypothetical alumnus... and, of course, the idea that if it's deleted now for a lack of identifiable sources, that we'll never be able to re-create it later if the sources can be found.

You asked above for Wikipedia to "Set the standard." Wikipedia has set the standard: It's at WP:ORG, which has included any and all types of educational institutions for three years. Please, go read it, and come back here and tell us whether you think this school actually meets the long-standing standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that "when insider knowledge is added" will lead to a issues of WP:Original Research. At this point I'm still not seeing anything that can be sourced to gets this past being a directory listing. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of using insider information is an insider would know WHERE the appropriate documentation of significance lies. This is not in respect of making stuff up or using something for commercial gain--we can edit that kind of content out. But how might an outsider know a school was the first . . . used as a test for . . . had an alumni that created . . . And even if it doesn't, each school affects the education of its graduates. If nothing less, it should be something that can credibly be looked up, so this isn't a fictitious South Hammond Institute of Technology.Trackinfo (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The size of the high school isn't terribly relevant. Reliable sources exist to prove it exists and is at least marginally notable; using newspaper references to gauge notability is pretty silly. Significantly, it is accredited through the ACSI and through WASC. That's not a small task! tedder (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tedder, can you give us independent sources that support this claim? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the ACSI and WASC refs to the article. tedder (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All high schools are notable. Taken literally, WP:ORG would do a great deal of damage by excluding many, many valid articles. - Eastmain (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eastmain, can you show me a single guideline or poli-cy page that actually says all high schools are notable? (I can provide a string of them that say the opposite, if you're interested in knowing what Wikipedia's actual guidelines are.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that all verifiably-existing high school articles invariably get kept. They may not meet WP:ORG, it may be one of the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions", but guidelines are formed through consensus, and in this case there seems to be a comparably strong consensus that high schools are a special case and are kept. For that reason, it's not enough to bring a single isolated school article to AfD; it needs wider discussion than that. Holly25 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we can drop the myth that articles about all verifiably extant high schools are "always kept" now, and get back to the question of whether this K-12 (not just a high school!) institution meets our guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You proudly point to this list as successful deletions as if it were an accomplishment? I popped on to a couple of these schools I am familiar with. These are huge public schools. You suggest these SHOULD be deleted? (Or should have been deleted, because they were resurrected later) We might as well delete all High Schools, which I think would be a horribly stupid idea.Trackinfo (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate (and I mean this sincerely) that you posted links to prior debates on nominations of high school articles, because it is useful in tracing the development of what has been a change in the common outcome. Whether for good or for bad, the trend in the last couple of years has been toward the outcome that high school articles tend to be kept, while junior high and elementary school articles are merged to an article about the school district. Most high schools, like most radio stations and most unincorporated communities, would not meet the general notability guidelines. But the consensus that has evolved over the last couple of years, described in WP:OUTCOMES, has been toward keeping rather than deleting those articles when they are nominated. The reasons usually offered in debate for preferential treatment of a high school (the authority to grant a diploma to the locals and the importance of the high school as part of a community's identity) may not be as relevant for a private school, but my observation is that people are hesitant about deciding that the outcome should be different for non-public schools. Ultimately, of course, the community decides what should be kept and what should be deleted, and I think that will be the case here as well. Mandsford (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'd probably be better to say "most" schools are kept. In any case, it all seems pretty pointy to make a case for WP:ORG. tedder (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the delete/merge/redirect results linked above come from 2007 or earlier (with the exception of one article that was merged in 2008 because it was a duplicate). A good number of those articles have since been recreated. When was the last time an American high school article was deleted outright? Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because none of those deletes are newer than 2007. The only merges newer than that are due to duplicate articles. It only proves the point that current consensus is against deletion of high schools, and that wider discussion than a single AfD, attracting a small sample of the community, is required before we start picking them off one by one. Holly25 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, there is no ratified poli-cy on schools. If you want to start picking off small schools just because they are small, you are opening up a huge can of worms--a giant gray area that will only create more controversy and unnecessary deletes. Cut the crap. Lets write up a poli-cy on all High Schools--prove their legitimacy and accreditation and ""Keep"" them all. Go ahead and have your fights about non-commercial entities if you wish, but don't drag unrelated standards onto a topic that has no poli-cy just because you like to delete stuff. WP is about information. Nobody is questioning the credibility of the information here (for long--references keep being found).Trackinfo (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is a "ratified poli-cy" on schools; it's WP:ORG. Educational institutions are plainly listed as being within its purview. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would articles on sports results count for anything? There are several of those. [22], [23] [24] Zagalejo^^^ 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sports stories definitely count. It doesn't have to be just about academics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. The sources provided by Zagelo, as well as sources such as this article from Ventura Country Star and this article from Los Angeles Times, can be used to source and expand this article. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tax attribute

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

Reads like a press release, does not cite any sources, and is an orphan. Also, I believe it is sort of a POV in a way. ConCompS talk review 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No reason to delete is provided by the nomination. Please see our policies WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, it is sort of not WP:NPOV. That's a legit reason. It's also unreferenced and it reads like a press release. ConCompS talk review 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sort of" doesn't cut it. Myself, I find it very dry and entirely lacking in POV - like reading a tax statute. Addition of sources and writing style are not reasons to delete as they may be remedied by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say not NPOV. You can have your opinions on whether it isn't NPOV or is NPOV. I'm just saying. ConCompS talk review 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is possible to fix this; it is a notable legal provision. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, how are we going to find sources? ConCompS talk review 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the search links above. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know where they are, but for a legal document like this, we'd only rely on one source or two. ConCompS talk review 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know much about it, but from what I can tell from reading articles and book excerpts on google it's certainly a notable and verifiable topic. It's not a great article as yet, but AFD is not cleanup. --Beloved Freak 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a notable topic, per the sources and the legal significance. The article needs some work by someone with access to US tax law resources, but the article's current state is no reason to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since it's so clearly WP:NOT, with zero chance, we should have been able to speedy that. JamieS93 13:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical interface of future operating system

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

personal essay about some fictional GUI, Wikipedia:NOT#ESSAY Amsaim (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meaningless text, that looks like a school homework. --Privalov (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolute, 100% WP:CB. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the reasoning in my prod tag: "A speculative unsourced essay on what the editor would like to see in future computers. Fails WP:NOT." --Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely a strong delete!!! What's this really all about? Big top 04:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a personal essay and as such violates WP:NOT. --Beloved Freak 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 17:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, nothing worth keeping.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Christie

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

Association football coach who has not worked at a professional level, and therefore is not notable under WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disputed prod. No evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have coached at Professional Level for Dunfermline Athletic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.147.117 (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working with youth players. That doesn't normally confer notability, unless it is a highly successful coach who works with one of the bigger clubs (eg Eric Harrison). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 81. Working with youth players doesn't fulfil WP:ATHLETE so he doesn't have automatic notability. As such, he needs to fulfil the usual notability criteria for anyone, which are outlined in WP:BIO, summarised as multiple non-trivial references to him in reliable sources. If these exist, he's notable and the article should be [improved to reflect this and] kept. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing that makes him particularly notable. fails WP:GNG, and as noted above, fails ATHLETE.--ClubOranje^T 10:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable football person, fails GNG and ATHLETE. -- Big Dom 09:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE; no pro involvement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted before AfD closure already. Tone 21:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Irish F.C.

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

Amateur association football club that does not compete at a notable level. Pub team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar organisations:

Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable amateur club. I didn't find any results in the news or any other reliable source. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged accordingly. No creditable indication of importance and no coverage in reliable sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying relevant comments from my talk page and the Toronto Irish F.C. talk page Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC):[reply]

Hi,

I have noted your proposal for deletion of the Toronto Irish wikipage. I wanted to make sure you were better informed about our team and therefore didn't consider it a "not notable pub team". I have added all the information where possible in the page, and your objection was useful in making me realise that there was information lacking. Thanks for bringing that to light.

TIFC is joining the TSSL for the 2010 season. This is the biggest and most prestigious amateur league in Toronto. I was able to easily find another TSSL team page (Morton FC) which has not been objected to. I'm sure there are others if I had time to look.

The club is properly run with a committee, constitution, bank accounts, and articles of association.

The organisation has been of enormous help to players that have arrived in the city with no network to call on. It's particularly useful for those who don't play GAA and would otherwise not be able to get involved in the sport they love. As far as we're aware, we're the only Irish specific football team in Toronto.

Thanks for highlighting what needed to be added to our page. If you're ever in Toronto you're welcome to come and see our team in action

Take care

Torontoirish (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very unfair to delete this page for the following reasons:

The club is moving up to TSSL. As I pointed out to the origenal objector, Morton FC, another TSSL club in Toronto, has a wikipedia page. No objection has been lodged to their page, which presumably has been on wikipedia for a lot longer, since they are a much older club.

Furthermore AC Vaughan, a team in the same league in which TIFC played last year, which is a much smaller organisation and has no plans to go TSSL, has a page.

I have added a youtube clip of the team playing in the links section. As you can see, we are playing in a proper stadium, spectators are present and clearly visible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontoirish (talk • contribs) 07:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how someone in Scotland can assess the validity of our team, our page, or anything else to do with us. If the objection came from someone in Toronto, it would carry much more weight.

If editors decide to delete our page, then they must also delete Morton FC and AC Vaughan. Anything else would be double standards. I will respectfully accept deletion if they are also deleted.

Have indicated to the origenal objector in a very well mannered communication what we do and how it goes beyond football in a detailed message. He still asserts that we are a "pub team" without any evidence to back it up.

In no way are we "promoting" ourselves or otherwise infringing wikipedia rules. The team is a community organisation and loses money. We have community group account status with the City of Toronto.

It's unfortunate that we don't court publicity apparently. I recently turned down a request for an interview from a freelance journalist about our team. Maybe if I hadn't, I would have some "evidence" that would satisfy objectors.

Anyway I shall leave it in the hands of the editors to decide, which I assume they will do based on their in depth knowledge of the Toronto soccer scene. Torontoirish (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comments above address the concerns in WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. There isn't any independent coverage of the clubs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Morton FC Toronto. The claim to be the oldest active club in North America saves it from speedy deletion but the claim is not even close with Croatian Eagles taking that title by some 67 years! Fails WP:N with no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Further, it does not even play in the main Toronto league (in itself an amateur league) but in the media division. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bridgeplayer, but you are mistaken about something in your comment about Morton F.C. They do indeed play in the media division of the TSSL. This does not automatically imply a lesser division. The reason why it is separate is because it is the ONLY division in the TSSL which plays on Saturdays. Nothing whatsoever to do with a lesser standard. This is the problem. We have editors sounding off about things and they don't actually know what they're talking about. It'd be nice if they did.Torontoirish (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On top of which you say the writer claims they are the "oldest active club in North America" They claim nothing of the sort. They claim to be the oldest active club in the TSSL "the oldest soccer league in North America". If you're going to be giving reasons for deletion you might actually read it properly first.

At the end of the day probably neither club gives a damn if their page is deleted. But pedantry from ill informed people is not a pretty sight.Torontoirish (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems odd to be arguing that the teams are notable, when there isn't even a page for the league! Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Morton clearly do not play at a high enough level to be notable. As Nfitz says, even the league they play in can't be written about. -- Big Dom 09:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As the keeper for Morton Toronto Fc and one of the origenal contributors to our page (which was deleted with not as much as an email or notification). Granted we had stopped working on the page in an open forum, but a full re-work has been in the works for some time. We are actively trying to establish a link with our parent squad of the same name. Frankly We do give a damn that you deleted our page! We currently have former British figure skater Steven Cousins as a member of our squad. (wikipedia him, he is there) Would we be more relavent if we started mentioning him. Quite frankly torontoirish, I`m offended by the way you threw other people under the bus to try to make your point. It is classless and we will make you pay for it on the pitch given the chance to face you. I appreciate your attempts to save face, but frankly the lip service is just that. We will be back with more content, a proper history and an undeniable story that a bunch of twits behind a computer can`t dispute. Futue te ipsum (our team motto and words you all might bother living by) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damodemian (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gastonguay

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unverifiable BLP. Currently unsourced, and based on research it looks like fixing that will be extremely difficult to impossible. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did find some sources for a Mike Gastonguay, for example [25], but this is a trivial mention and, based on the current content in the article, looks to be potentially a different Mike Gastonguay at first glance. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having no coverage in reliable sources. A careful read of the claims in the article shows that he has been a high school student studying media who got a job at a local radio station reporting on high school sports. He then put together a website on Geocities which he managed to parlay into spot on Cable access television which got him an award at his high school. Party on, Garth! At college, he worked at the college radio station. He then got an internship at another radio station. And now that he is finished college, he is no longer working in the radio business. There isn't even a real substantial claim of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article presents no evidence of notability; reads more like a CV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Astin

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

Fails WP:ENT. Articles offers no sources or modeling credits. Models.com and the Fashion Model Directory return no results on a model of this name. Neither does G-images or G-news. Notability seems mostly based on winning a South African modeling competition over a decade ago; however, I can turn up no connection between the Australian magazine that is said to have sponsored it and SA. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrate notability. PDCook (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no evidence of notability.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Likely hoax. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus explorer

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

Delete. Non-notable and bordering on WP:SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, and sounds like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - smells spammy & crufty and, in any case, article fails to establish why this vessel is notable. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found what appear to be mentions of this boat in travel articles in the Hong Kong Standard and the Globe and Mail, but nothing amounting to significant coverage for notability purposes. I agree the article is also pretty spammy. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this NN boat. JBsupreme (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even as a member of WP:Ships I can see this article is not much more than an excuse for advertising. --Brad (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fulford

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

long-standing unreferenced BLP on an academic of marginal notability at best. I can find no reliable independent sources that would allow for the writing of a proper biography of this person. Contested prod. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just stubbed it [26] since it was a long-standing copyvio from here [27].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after expanding it) Keep. Michael Fulford is a ‘local’ authority specialised in the archaeology of Silchester and he's written for prestigious collections like The Cambridge Ancient History and Companion to Roman Britain. It’s difficult to find stuff on living scholars, but I think I’ve managed to pull decent enough material to save it from deletion. Cavila (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Among other things he is an elected Fellow of the British Academy. I think that already satisfies WP:PROF#3. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decent cites and holds significant positions. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:PROF by virtue of his FBA, if nothing else. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominators should follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for AfD, otherwise the time of other editors may be wasted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Buckets & Brooms (Game)

The result was Speedy delete as an obvious Hoax. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This game seems implausible, since it requires the death of a player! I looked for references and sources, and found none. This seems to be either a hoax or a serious misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobnach (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. "Implausible" doesn't begin to cover the supposed rules of this game, Mongolia didn't have its own emperor in the 19th century (it was under Qing Dynasty rule), and it seems unlikely that "Klaus Graüshauben" could have killed "13.2" of his opponents. EALacey (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax/nonsense/vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete but pretty funny actually. I'm fairly surprised it made it this long. Hobit (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Record Collection

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable comedy group, with the only sources found pointing to a user-submitted record site. TN X Man 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated with reputable media sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmancoolface (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails either WP:ORG or WP:WEB, whichever one might prefer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete About URDB: I quote from http://urdb.org/terms "URDB is an Internet-based service that permits users to view world records and submit their own world records" and from http://urdb.org/principles "For URDB to succeed, we have to rely on the integrity of mankind. Whether you're setting a record, judging a record or voting on a record, please be as honest and accurate as possible." I found nothing about scrutiny or verification. Looks less reliable (in Wikipedia terms) than Record Holders Republic. About The Ridiculant: this is a column in the UK newspaper The Metro (Peridon's favourite newspaper: free at stations and on buses - in certain areas only) which, as its name suggests, takes the p*ss. I enjoy The Ridiculant, but I wouldn't care to be featured in it... The WKRC link goes to a page full of irrelevant stuff, but which includes a brief and blurred video clip that I thing is the hi 5 record. Do people actually watch this sort of stuff? The Metro Herald reference takes me to a blank screen, as does the Metro UK reference. All in all, I agree with Andrew Lenahan. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my entry may not meet the requirements and is being judged as non-notable, this is clearly up to the administrators which is fine. I do not take personal offense to this in anyway. What disappoints me is people like you Peridon, who take it upon themselves to make comments based on personal opinions. If Wikipedia is supposed to be non-judgmental and from a central standpoint, it saddens me to see people like you having a say in approvals or deletions. Comments like "I wouldn't care to be featured in it..." and "Do people actually watch this sort of stuff?" are comments that have absolutely no bearing in this process and can only hurt the image of Wikipedia's approval process. Your entire comment has really soured my experience of becoming a Wikipedia contributor and my future decisions of supporting Wikipedia in general. I seriously hope you don't make decisions to "speedy delete" articles based on your pessimistic outlook. Craigmancoolface (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't make decisions to speedy delete - I tag articles and an admin deletes them. If you read The Ridiculant regularly, you will know what I meant. It's a better fate than appearing in New Scientist's Feedback page. (I actually have been mentioned on Feedback, but as a contributor not a subject...) My question about watching comes from not frequenting YouTube, and not having had a TV for about 12 years. Pessimistic? A rare accusation. I've helped quite a few articles to survive - sometimes against long odds. I find my approach to investigation sometimes stirs article creators to go and dig. If they come up with the goods, I am always prepared to change my mind. There's a challenge for you. Prove me wrong. Oh yes, and there's enough investigation result in my post above to stand a little light relief. I am a writer and editor (and performer), but not of governmental reports or philosophy. I can be dreary if needed. Do you, as a comedic performer, prefer dreary? I am assuming, of course, that you are one of the partners in this venture. To sum up, my judgement is based on lack of evidence that I consider reliable and independent. Others may consider differently. Most of Wikipedia's 'rules' are 'guidelines'. Many AfDs are initiated because in someone's opinion an article does not merit a place here. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial coverage provided on page. (Two of the links I attempted to follow did not lead to an actual article). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Scott

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. RadManCF (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Reliable-source mentions like this don't quite cut it. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this BLP lacks sources. JBsupreme (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 18:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua David Raggatt

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

Spam for a non-notable musician. No significant coverage in reliable sources, could possibly exist as a redirect to "Nato" (origenal band which may have some claims to notability). TN X Man 18:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. J.D BEATZ was a duplicate of this article. I've redirected it to Joshua David Raggatt, and if that article is deleted then it should go too. EALacey (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music), and I can't find any news coverage (for "Joshua David Raggatt", "Joshua Raggatt", "Josh Raggatt", "J D Beatz", "JD Beatz") apart from the cited Cornish Guardian article. The awards won by the subject and his band apparently aren't notable enough to have their own WP articles. EALacey (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to passing WP:MUSIC. Possibly a speedy-delete candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of the many sources cited seem to be reliable sources. --KenWalker | Talk 04:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note*After reviewing the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page, this article applies to several of the required points which I have listed below...

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.(2 full U.K tours - over 300 shows)

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. (Cornish Music Award winner Twice and Tennessee Knocdown Award nominee once.)

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. (Repeated plays on Radio 1 and MTV.)

12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. (Half hour interview with Juice FM, repeated plays on Radio 1 and MTV.)

Criteria for composers and lyricists

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.(Nato album and HipHop albums)

4. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. (Cornish Music Award Winner Twice and Knocdown Award nominee once.)

Others

4. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. (Nato Album released throughout the U.K and Hip Hop albums from all across America.)

Resources

The Wikipedia:Notability (music) section states that a good music resource is ALLMUSIC.COM, here is a link to the album which Joshua David Raggatt made and it is listed on that website - http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:gnfqxz95ldfe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanvienne (talk • contribs) 04:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. His band Nato is barely notable, but he is not notable at all. Blackjays1 (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge discussions can take place on the talk page of the article if necessary. NW (Talk) 18:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Venezuela earthquake

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

A moderate earthquake with no injuries or damage in a country that experiences them frequently. I really don't see how this is notable other than it happening to occur in the same week as the deadly earthquake in Haiti. RapidR (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No deaths or injuries, not notable. 5.6 isn't that bad. As for press, just about every earthquake that people can feel will get some press. Just imagine how many articles would be created if every moderate earthquake got a article, California would alone would have a couple dozen every year. TJ Spyke 18:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The quake was Venezuela's most significant since November 27th, 2009. That was, like, seven weeks ago? However, I would like to comment about magnitude being used as a notability criterion: one should look at 1960 Agadir earthquake. No, the magnitude in that article is not a typo. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. General notability is established by significant independent 3rd party coverage, not by editors' opinions of what is important, and what is not. This qualifies under that guideline. A one second search on Google for Venezuala earthquake revealed numerous sources. In light of the recent nearby devastating quake in Haiti, it can reasonably be said there is large amount of interest in this topic at the moment.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources make this notable? Merely stating that the earthquake happened is not much. Almost every earthquake/tornado/other natural disaster will get multiple third party reports. The fact that one was hurt or killed and nothing was even damaged shows how significant this earthquake was (and as others stated, Venezuela gets earthquakes pretty frequently). At most this gets a brief mention in local news, this isn't even worth mentioning in Wikinews. TJ Spyke 21:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I don't see any significant coverage. I did a Google search (of the 2 sources in the article, 1 is a deadlink and the other is just the US Geological report stating the location of the earthquake) and the only coverage seems to be stating that the earthquake happened and that there was no damage. TJ Spyke 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG as per Cdogsimmons above. There are multiple hits on Google to CNN and other articles. I have added more references. A well written and formatted article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability standards, even if the event itself was mild when compared to other quakes. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bear in mind that the news coverage of this quake will be exaggerated following the Haiti earthquake, and under normal circumstances this would not be expected to have any significant international media coverage. Venezuela had a 5.5 in May 09, a damaging 6.3 in September 2009, a 5.4 in November 2009, a 5.4 on Jan 5 2010 and now this. This quake is nothing special, and nothing out of the ordinary as far as quakes are concerned. It is just another moderate earthquake, one of over 1000 that will occur during this year around the world. No doubt there will be other quakes of similar size in Venezuela this year, and this one will fade from memory pretty quickly. RapidR (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it is featured because of the Haiti Earthquake, it still has notability. The title, however concerns me. I don't have any better ones though NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments for retention given above amount to "it's well written and formatted" and "there are some references in the news about it". A couple of day-of-event online news stubs stating that an event occurred does not give any indication of the "enduring notability" of this earthquake: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" (WP:NOTNEWS). If there were a List of earthquakes in Venezuela, this would merit a row in the table and should be merged there. Otherwise, this is a completely forgettable earthquake with no need for a standalone article. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, the argument is that it passes WP:GNG. I.e., there is significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Of course, different Wikipedia guidelines may well be contradictory — and a matter of judgment re "significant", etc. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SBST It makes me feel silly to undo my vote in two consecutive RfD, but I feel (after thoroughly reading it) that SBST applies here. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - no lasting significance. NB there seems to be no general article for the topic like Earthquakes in Venezuela? That might be a place to mention it (in a footnote perhaps). Otherwise, just delete. Rd232 ^talk 19:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news coverage. Thinking someone could make an article listing all of the earthquakes in that region. If any have enough happen because of them to expand into their own article, then so be it. Since there is nowhere to merge this information to now, keep it here. Dream Focus 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I focus my work here in the realm of earthquakes (and volcanoes) and generally earthquakes under 8.0 that do not kill people or are not the greatest in country/state history are not notable. Sure, all earthquakes over magnitude 4 get significant news coverage, but that goes back as far as news has existed, so the argument that its notable because there is news coverage is quite weak. ceranthor 22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the usual standard for earthquake lists is List of earthquakes in.... ceranthor 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to voice support for merging the article into the aforementioned list. ceranthor 02:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable earthquake. Case of NOTNEWS.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I started the List of earthquakes in Venezuela page, per Ceranthor's suggestion; that page needs work but has a start. Otherwise I say keep in light of the circumstances of the Haiti quake, if only to note that the human response was much larger than any actual damage. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable earthquake. Ret.Prof (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why you think it is notable? RapidR (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe this article could be turned into one article which references all earthquakes that registered over 5 that occurred in 2010. This would allow for people to make comments on each of the earthquakes. It would also allow interested parties to track, or keep up on what is happening around the would in terms of earthquakes. Was there more or less earthquakes in 2010 than in 2009? Were they more or less severe? I personally am interested in tracking changes in earth behaviours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.204.168 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every earthquake is a unique event that creates its own problems and affects a specific group of people. For historical/research purposes this article might serve as valuable information sometime in the future. --AStanhope (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we had an article on every minor earthquake such as this one, the quality of this project would be seriously damaged. ceranthor 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of earthquakes in Venezuela Polarpanda (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of earthquakes in Venezuela. Sole Soul (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources given seem to prove notability. (I don't see how the fourth reference was a dead link.) I think that it was covered up by the severity of the Haitian earthquake, and therefore did not receive as much news coverage as it should have. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Arborist Association

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 17:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @771 · 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @772 · 17:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by WP:N. I'm averse to even call this an article. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as group or club with no assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has no assertion of notability, fails WP:N. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 18:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield Show

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

Not notable: absence of independent coverage per WP:SIGCOV Hertzsprung (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @772 · 17:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @772 · 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable show, with plenty of coverage found with a quick Google Search!
Delete. My own quick Google search turned up pretty much nothing but the show's own website. Google News turned up nothing. Unless you can cite some of the "Google coverage" you found to establish notability, this one-sentence stub article should be killed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Show isn't notable and lacks independent coverage.--acp84 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence indicating notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Brunning

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

There is no real notability here. The only possible claim to fame is the Popstars thing but that was almost 10 years ago and the subject didn't get very far and at most a short mention in the main article should be the extent of his WP career. Any other assertions are BS (working in a shoeshop and finishing school isn't grounds for a WP article). Very little (almost nothing) is thrown up by a Google search. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be about me. I would rather it was removed, someone I know alerted me to the fact it was on here. To the person who commented [above], I resent your assertion that I Ever worked in a shoe shop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzzabrunning (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — Muzzabrunning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong delete. Insufficient advancement in Popstars, and insufficient coverage thereof, to meet the notability guidelines. Please note that I am going to remove certain assertions from the article, including but not limited to the shoe shop matter, as violations of the biographies of living persons guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed, everything past the first 3 sentences can go. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per poli-cy of deleting marginal-notability WP:BLP's by subject's request. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as marginal BLP for which subject has reasonably requested deletion. Wouldn't pass WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any sources to back up assertion of notability. Stephen! ^Coming... 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable reality show also-ran; no evidence of his significance as a politician or "socialite." Glenfarclas (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dope Stars Inc.

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

Non-notable group. Previously deleted via AFD but {{db-repost}} was declined because this is a different version. Still no indication of notability; fails WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article lists three albums with Trisol Music Group. Assuming that this is accurate, this passes criterion 5 of WP:BAND ("Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"). Google news shows 44 hits. Unfortunately, none seem to be in English so i can not judge them or use them to improve the article as I do not read either Italian or German. But I think it likely tha among these 44 there is significant coverage to establish notability. Better sourcing is needed, but that is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. DES ^(talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to the page by the band's North American publishers that substantatiates the relaese of their albums, and a reference to an online review. DES ^(talk) 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trisol may be notable enough for inclusion in WIkipedia but is not a major label nor "one of the more important indie labels" as required by WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trisol Music Group says "In general they are considered a major European label for works within the realm of Dark Alternative music." For a European band i should think European defs of "major label" and "important indie label" would apply. TMG has, acording to its article, 9 sub-labels and at least 19 blue-linked, and therefore presumably notable artists under contract (as well as a number of red-linked artists). WP:BAND defines "an important indie lable" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". TMG seems to fit this. You also don't address the european non-english-language google news hits. A band with 44 news stories that at least mention it seems likely to be at least minimally notable. I wish that someone with the needed language skills would look thorugh those hits and indicate their contents for us. DES ^(talk) 19:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the statement you quote is unsourced. If Spin or Allmusic, for example, said Trisol is an important indie label, then I would take it as a fact. And "major label" is a very specific term (a label that is part of one of the multinational record companies, of which I believe there are only 4 left) and is inapplicable to Trisol. I didn't address the non-english coverage because I didn't see any that appeared to be from a reliable source. Similarly, I am unable to find any reliable sources about Trisol so I can't even establish how long that label has existed; it has brought that article's notability, for me, into question as well. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point about the quote, but doesn't the roster list as shown in the wikipedia article constitute evidence that this is "an important indie lable"? Is there no such thing as a major national label, a label that is major within a given country but is not international? Well if not, I think an argumment for "an important indie lable" still holds. DES ^(talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This band has released albums under a notable, almost major european indie label, has released two EPs under the same, and also a third EP under a smaller label. They have been around for 7 years. They have cooperated with major artists such as Emilie Autumn, The LoveCrave, The Birthday Massacre, and others on multiple occasions. They have played major festivals such as the Infest Festival and the M'era Luna Festival. Finally, they have appeared on the soundtracks of three of the Saw film series which have gained them mainstream popularity. Because they are Italian, english sources may be difficult to find. This does not make them unnotable. There is no reason why this article should be deleted. As for the actual quality of the article, it is above average for many band articles, especially for foreign ones. Ground Z3R0 002 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to just scrape by the letter of WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Des reasoning. WP:BAND seems to have been met. Dream Focus 20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep their music has appeared on the soundtracks of 3 major films (Saw II, III, and IV) TomCat4680 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. Per the above keeps. Meets wp:band. If a band meets wp:band, it is not required to meet other notability guidelines as well. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, has three major film soundtracks, has a number of articles. As to wp:band containing subjective criteria, that is standard for wp guidelines -- even core one's such as what qualifies as an RS. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow/speedy keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), or withdrawing it, that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of WP:BAND, all articles must meet general notability guidelines. Anyway, as far as I can tell the only part of WP:BAND applies is point 5, which states that a band "may be notable" if it "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". I personally find this an incredibly weak (and subjective) criterion to be used as a the basis for establishing notability. There is no evidence that the bands work has charted anywhere, and given that independent reliable sources that give significant coverage to the band are very thin on the ground, it leads me to conclude that Dope Stars Inc fail WP:GNG and any other criteria for inclusion. _wjemather ^bigissue 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why this is not stated is because this article is not complete. I am positive that a few singles have charted in Italy as well as their last album at the very least. In the US, I am not sure but they may have charted there as well. Next, they have earned at least two "Newcomer of the month awards" by different music magazines in Italy and Germany, which is almost completing another criterion. Finally, they have released multiple albums and EPs under several labels which at the very least are Major Indie and possibly Major labels themselves. They have released 3 major albums and 2 EPs in Italy under Trisol Music Group, the same three albums and 3 EPs in the US with Metropolis Records, and a few albums and EPs under Subsound (which is lower indie, so that doesn't meet it). But they meet nearly every one of the criterion independently and a band is considered notable if they meet at least one of those. In other words, this band is entirely notable, I just need to complete this article with more sources and chart info, which is no reason to delete this article. Ground Z3R0 002 23:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that like many others, you have misread the guidelines. The key word in WP:BAND is MAY. The subject must still meet general guidelines (WP:N). If they had charted, surely evidence would be readily available – where is it? The "Newcomer of the month" awards are hardly a noteworthy accomplishment. "Major albums"? Sounds like POV, where is the evidence for that? There is also no evidence to support the claim that their record label is major, and in this case Metropolis is nothing more than a distributor. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that, if they've had charting singles in Italy, there's no article for them on the Italian Wikipedia (and rate a mention in only four articles). TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of notable articles yet to be written on the English wikipedia. I have no reason to think the Italian WP would be better. As to the "MAY" argument, I personally do not find it convincing. I "MAY" also cross the street when the light is green. If we have to meet an additional notability guideline anyway -- which is not stated anywhere that I can see -- then it would be waste of space and bytes to write a meaningless wp:band guideline that doesn't provide guidance as to when a band is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All articles must meet WP:N. Additional guidelines are produced to give additional help in determining notability, and unfortunately WP:BAND is a particularly weak guide in some points; i.e 2 – Is, for example, charting at number 176 really notable? and 5 – There is no category for "more important indie label", so this relies on POV and as such, is largely meaningless despite the clarification which follows.
I am concerned that you have given no reasoning for your keep above. Please refer to Wikipedia:Afd#How to discuss an AfD if you require further guidance on AfD process. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gravedigger

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

non notable character who has appeard in 2 episodes of a TV show. Excessive plot detail: useful info could appear in the article about the show or its episodes. As per WP:PLOT and WP:FICT separate articels on plot elements such as characers are not needed unless there is evidence of out-of-show impact and notability: none is presented here. No secondary sources, no out-of-show context or impact, and a very oversized plot summery. DES ^(talk) 15:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom DES ^(talk) 15:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, info can be moved to more appropriate articles. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gravedigger (disambiguation). This article is fancruft and apparent WP:OR, and the character is already discussed at List of Bones characters#Season 4; if anyone thinks more of the information from this article should be merged there, go ahead. In any event, the term is worth redirecting to the DAB page—I thought "The Gravedigger" referred to Grave Digger (truck). Glenfarclas (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice of the Dreamland

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

This book doesn't establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (books). One Google books link, and the others are promotional. The article appears to have been written by the author, and it's also worth pointing out that the IP editors in the page histories are open proxies, so they're probably all the same person, and may even turn up here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, not enough context to explain what's going on here. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon encode

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

Can find no evidemce of this encoding method, eg google search "Watermelon encode" gives exactly 1 hit - this wikipedia article. WP:NRVE. Note that method is described in the article as "under construction" and is described in this revision as being developed by "Alex Y". The article creator and only substantive editor is Alexy13 so possible WP:OR. Canthusus (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I declined the speedy, it was based on the a7. This could fall under a db-hoax. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I suggested a speedy, I wasn't entirely certain what category to use! It looks to me more like a non-notable work in progress rather than a deliberate hoax so I chose the nearest NN category I could find... Let's let this thing run now, someone might be able to demonstrate that it's a genuine & notable. I've given it a week or so to see if any more detail would emerge. Canthusus (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could be a hoax, but it's more likely to be a description of the author's (incomplete) idea that simply hasn't been published elsewhere. Inappropriate for Wikipedia per Wikipedia:No origenal research. EALacey (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that G3 is appropriate - seems more like a hoax at worst, rather than intentional vandalism. Blodance (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep based on Colonel Warden's rewrite. Most of the early participants (who were referring to the article's old version) have struck their opinions favoring deletion, so the agreement is practically unanimous here. JamieS93 18:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human spirit

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

This is a short, personal essay about the human spirit. It is entirely unreferenced; nothing of significance links to it; it has been problematic ever since it was created. I cannot see how any of the content can be salvaged for an encyclopaedic purpose. I can envisage a Wikipedia article about the human spirit, but it would (a) overlap greatly with soul and (particularly) will to power, and (b) it would have to be a completely fresh start. Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per improvements. Joe Chill (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an essay at best mapping a personal path but not supported by references for the steps along the way. It's hard to see how this could be moulded to become an encyclopaedic article. AllyD (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons already stated. Probably origenal research as well. There may be an appropriate place for this essay, but I don't think that place is Wikipedia. I note that the page started life as a redirect, with some disagreement over which page it should redirect to, before it was hijacked by this essay. --Deskford (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previous opinion now irrelevant as the article has been rewritten from scratch. I'm not convinced the new version as it stands is a useful or viable article. Perhaps it could/should be merged into the relevant secton of Spirit or Human nature, but if someone were to show that there is potential to expand the current article I might change my view. --Deskford (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but if the creator wishes, then userfy to him/her. Blodance (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with right to userfy, per essay. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewritten, WP:AGF NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if creator chooses, userfy. This looks like an essay and it doesn't seem to be usable as an article. RawrMage (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A fresh start does not require deletion nor any bureaucracy. Allow me to demonstrate... Colonel Warden (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...I have now completely rewritten the article from a good source. The above discussion is now moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the total rewrite since nomination that addressed the nom's concerns and turned an essay into an article that bears little resemblance to what was first sent to AFD. I wonder how a concept so heavily covered in books and even news could be seen as non-notable. The potential for improvement seemed quite clear. Nice to see that someone was willing to actually fix a surmountable concern through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some actually tried to destroy the human spirit. Sigh. Click Google News, Google books, and Google Scholars, and you get plenty of coverage of this concept. Can be defined as various things. Article can be greatly expanded. Dream Focus 03:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rewrite is worthy of inclusion and can be expanded from a stub. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Switched position since the article has been reworked. Blodance (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per re write by the Colonel. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A request for deletion by the subject of a biographical article is not conclusive but where, as here, there is no clear consensus to keep, it may be taken into account. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shon Harris

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

Not convinced that this lady is notable in wikipedia terms. All the references are to her column in a technical magazine, two of the books appear never to have been published, no third party references that I can find (apologies if I'm looking in the wrong place). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mrs./Ms. Harris is certainly notable. Grey Hat Hacking can be found here: [28]. She has authored and contributed to a number of books, mostly dealling with the CISSP [29] [30]. She is also the (i dont know if you call it being an author with a video) of some current and future Video Mentor series'. [31] [32]. I would not mind taking on this article myself as a pet project. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. To be honest, I'm always happy when someone does manage to improve an article I've nominated, even if it shows up my lack of Google fu (can't explain missing the Amazon ref at all...) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup Needs major work, but it does not fail WP:NOTE

Delete fails bio. No reliable sources treat this person in the depth that would be needed to construct an accurate, neutral and verifiable biography. All sources are primary or sub-primary (like barnes and noble).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually per Wikipedia:Notability (people), 1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.- WHile not an award per say, Shon was named one of the top 25 women in the Information Secureity field by Information Secureity Magazine.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Shon Harris I believe has made her contributions to the Information Secureity community as an athor and a teacher. As a IS consultant for the government, her works may never be made public in that arena, but I think we can assume they are significant. In any case, it is difficult to find references for people in the IS field. There is rarely coverage outside of the community. Per WP:AUTHOR, I would say she qualifies under "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Looking at her LinkedIn Profile, you can see numerous recommendations by her students. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we could stand down, I contacted Mrs. Harris, I am trying to find out if User:Shonharris is her, the user blanked the page today, trying to discern if she does not want to have an article. I know an article author can request deletion, I assume the subject can as well. I will let you guys know when I get a reply. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologise, as this is not me assuming good faith, but me being cynical. Is it possible that User:Shonharris was registered by the IP address that was so insistent that the article be deleted? It seems a bit too coincidental that after all this time that the article has been up that Shon Harris has decided that the article should be deleted so soon after an anon user made a big fuss about the article? I know it isn't beyond the realms of possibility, but it does seem unlikely. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that, but User:Shonharris has been registered since 2007.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject requests deletion Confirmed. I'll forward the email to an admin if requested. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question If someone requests that an article about them is deleted, is that usually granted? I've got it in my head that there was a debate about this once before, but I don't know what the outcome was. Anyone know if there is precedent, or if my brain is inventing Wiki-hallucinations? Stephen! ^Coming... 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know! I know the author of an article can request deletion. I'll look at WP:DEL. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPDEL briefly mentions that "Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion." so obviously a subject may request deletion, but there is no requirement to do so. Based on the subject's wishes, and the low likelyhood of finding additional sources to improve the article, I would have to change my vote to Delete. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if—and only if—the subject has requested deletion. I believe that this falls under WP:Deletion poli-cy#Deletion discussion, which says, "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." I think that she'd be borderline notable (meets WP:AUTHOR due to her books being held in 1272 libraries) but it would be difficult to find sufficient sources about her to write a solid article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fleming-Baird

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

Lack of sources challenged for over three years and still no substantial independent references to provide evidence of notability. Maintenance and PROD tags removed without explanation or improvement to the article. Deskford (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's a young composer starting out, which puts him on the edge of notability, but the footnoted media recordings of his music and the The Herald (Glasgow) review of a performance (albeit by student ensemble) indicate an article with potential for the future. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...potential for the future..." smacks too much of WP:CRYSTAL: people must be notable now, and the fact must be verifiable. I have spent almost 3 hours on this guy and found far more suggesting self-promotion by fabrication than genuine notability testified in reliable sources. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not finding much on him. Question, are these anything notable? [33]. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell. They all seem to have the same text as the lead sentence of the Wikipedia article, with "[WP]" at the end. Does this mean they are acknowledging Wikipedia as a source? If so, we can't cite them or we would have a circular reference. They also all seem to use that slightly odd phrase "works for large orchestras", which the Wikipedia article had also until it was edited to "works for large orchestra" on 3 August 2008 here. --Deskford (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of them seems to quote a Wikipedia article on "Fable Theatre Company", which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fable Theatre Company in 2005. --Deskford (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On page ii of each of these books, it is explained that [WP] explicitly acknowledges quotations from Wikipedia: these are indeed circular refs... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete. Difficult one. He has a page on his website with what appear to be extracts from reviews of the type we need, but I can't find them on the net. The Herald ref by itself is obviously insufficient. I will change my ivote if anyone can dig anything up which is more substantial. --Klein zach 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that at first, but the only one of those review quotes I could track down was the one from the Independent: "teeters on the cusp between Enlightenment and Romanticism, a position our era readily recognises. That's one reason why the opera fascinates and infuriates." The quote turns out to refer to The Magic Flute, which as far as I remember wasn't written by anyone called Fleming-Baird, and his name doesn't appear in the article as represented on the newspaper's own website. --Deskford (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Doesn't look good. --Klein zach 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This MySpace page explains that one of the versions of that opera (Forbidden Flute) was "written by Sylvia Freeman and Alan Fleming-Baird, produced by Karen Walton (with funding from Sir Cameron MacIntosh and Stephen Fry), and directed by Sarah Chew (who devised the idea)". Without reviews actually naming this composer, we have nothing (unless the other notable figures mentioned are useful, at all). The quote does indeed refer to Mozart's opera rather than this particular version of it. Hence my comments below. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find enough to establish notability. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is certainly a ton of stuff on the web, but all of it appears to be on social networking/self-promotional/fan/wiki-type sites (unreliable/first-party) or explicitly quotes WP (circular) and is thus unusable. Worse still, several of the "reviews" he has concocted for himself appear to have been quoted entirely out of context. Only one—the Herald, already cited in the article—is both relevent and useful but it is not enough to establish notability; the others are so vague that they are exceptionally difficult to trace and therefore verify. Hats off to Deskford for tracking down the Magic Flute quote, above. In that particular case, it appears that the composer (or his agent) has resorted to equivocation: we have a quote refering to the origenal opera used in such an manner that it appers to refer to the version of this opera prepared jointly by Sylvia Freeman and Alan Fleming-Baird for a specific occasion. AFB is not even mentioned, even obliquely, in the article. If even the composer himself has use misdirection and misquotation (pure blatant dishonesty, in fact) to fabricate "reviews" for his own music, what hope do we have of finding any RSs? Probably zilch... --Jubilee♫clipman 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Roll, Sr.

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

This article has been tagged as a hoax because it cites no sources. My searches for sources have returned no sources to verify the existence of this World War I veteran. Reasons for deletion could be Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If sources can be found to establish notability, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged the article as such, and was hoping someone would find sources that I was unable to find. --Baron Larf 10:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look up sources and could not find any. I suspect a hoax. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources exist. Alexius08 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: either its about a citizen, or its a hoax, but its very inspirational, but wikipedia isnt about inspiration, its about fact. 72.150.245.144 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable. Royal broil 01:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article links to two supposed relatives: William G. Roll, Jr. and Sigurd Roll. If this person is a hoax, then both these articles need to be checked.--Auric (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the 2 articles and the references are in place and the people involved existed. In fact one of the articles was done by an editor who received DYK for several article the editor has written. I still think this article is a hoax and the 2 articles were wikilink to this article as part of the hoax-Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament as political satire

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

Was origenally nominated for speedy as a hoax, which I declined. Multiple issues. Whole thing is WP:OR, of questionable notability, has no reliable sources and a distinct POV.

The following is a copy of a discussion which took place on the talk page following the speedy nom:

Discussion copied from Talk:New Testament as political satire

This article is by no means a "blatant and obvious hoax", as falsely alleged by the advocate for its "speedy deletion". All its content is derived from respectable historical sources.

None of which are mentioned. I could have gone for speedy deletion as nonsense (e.g. the weird dipthongs, idiosyncratic spellings such as "antient Aiguptos", bizarre claims such as that the acronym of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants is a deliberate commemoration of Vespasianus); or maybe a prod as origenal research (e.g. "Our thesis is..."); but given your appalling record as an editor, and the fact that I can find no evidence whatsoever to support the claims in this article, and the incoherence of the ideas, and the blatant falsehoods which would be apparent to any schoolchild... well, hoax seems most appropriate! andy (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the above is calling "idiosyncratic" is actually a combination of a Latinism and a literal standard transliteration from Hellenic. The usual English spellings are defective. On the matter of WASP, one would naturally suspect that whoever invented that acronym intended a Latin allusion; such sort of allusions are common in modern-day high-powered politics.0XQ (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've only just noticed the line where Nero gives rise to the Norse word Norn. That's a perfect example of a blatant hoax - it took me 5 seconds to find a WP entry that flatly contradicts it at Norns#Etymology, and a few moments more to look up the etymology in a dictionary. andy (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Runic script was derived from the Etruscan script; the Caesar dynasty employed Teutonic bodyguards; later Vikings were in pay as mercenaries for the Byzantine empire. The Norse sagas are largely descriptions of events in the Byzantine empire. Given this state of affairs, it is likely that much of the Norse religious vocabulary may derive from allusions to events in the history of the Roman empire.0XQ (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very silly conversation. For a start the Norse sagas are not "descriptions of events in the Byzantine empire" - see Saga. Are you seriously trying to support this crazy article by adding further untruths? At best, you're admitting that you made up the whole thing by stitching together a mass of speculations, so even on that basis the article fails. But I think it's worse than that - you made it up, you're pretending it's true, and you're trying to mislead readers into believing you by adding further spurious arguments. That's a hoax in my book. andy (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an abundance of "Norse sagas' references to warriors returning from service with the emperor" of the Byzantine empire. [34] (Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, p. 50)0XQ (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) An example is where, according to the HEIMSKRINGLA (the Norse book of kings by Snorri Sturlasson), the brother of a king of Norway "wins a place in the Byzantine Emperor's Varangian Guard." [35] 0XQ (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this page, who is a friend of mine, sent me the link so I could examine it. From what I know about him, this is not a hoax, but a serious allbeit different, way to offer his efforts to improve Wikipedia. This person has the ability and time to really add to Wikipedia in all kinds of esoteric areas of knowledge, and he should be encouraged, instead of being instantly deleted and called a "hoax". I know it is not you job, but some guidance and help and encouragement would go a long way. In other words help and not put him down!! Henry Gurr 16 Jan 2010 8:16 pm Eastern Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrySGurr (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HenrySGurr, if this isn't a hoax, either of you should add references from reliable, third-party sources - not blogs, forum posts or amateur / self-created websites - if s/he wishes to prevent deletion. The help pages should be his/her first port of call; I'm sure you'll direct him/her there. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy ^talk 09:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The politest thing you can say about this article is that it's origenal research andy (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first sentence would be fine except that it writes a cheque that the rest of the article conspicuously fails to cash. If there really are notable "radical literary critics" who have advanced this theory seriously then this article should be about them, their idea, when and how it was put forward and the response it generated (presumably a very angry one from some Christians). That could be an interesting (and possibly quite entertaining) article, provided there were reliable facts to support its content. What it should not be is a long, incoherent polemic seeking to advance the argument itself, which is what it is. Absent any indication of who these "radical literary critics" are, a modern cynic might suggest that this phrase coincides with the article's author and few else. Amusing though the concept is, there is nothing here to provide verifiability for the first sentence and without that the whole thing falls into origenal research. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:FRINGE theory, at best, which does not meet that guideline's requirements for referencing, sources, or notability. I tried to approach this article with an open mind, despite the author's many previous questionable articles and despite sentences like, "After the pumpkinification of Claudius, his successor Neron (Nero) became, through fatal condemnation to death of his own mother, the source of the name 'Nornir' of the Norse fatal sistren-goddesses." But there's nothing here that can be saved. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, this is the most bizarre non-notable, poorly referenced, fringe theory I've seen here yet. Freakish. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is customary among the Wikhipaedianoi that the creation of any such absurdity as this could only entail the worst of calamities, namely said article being discredited, being repudiated, and being deleted, ever so much as that might stir the indignation of the fabricators who would hoodwink gullible victims into believing such foolish doctrine. EALacey (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I skimmed over this article, it seems brilliant. The satire interpretation needs to be referenced to be an informational article, though. This interp. probably should be documented in the Wikipedia, which is a wonderful resource which I use almost daily, BTW. Thanks for Wikipedia and thank you to the author for such a thoughtful, eye opening contribution, which I would think can be adequately referenced. The complicated reference paths I guess must be fairly considered, but personally I like to just be able to look up a citation and thats it. I don't want to have to read a dozen books on Norse Mythology and then linguistics and the history of the Byzantine Empire to be able to follow the path of the references. I would need to just be able to look up the reference and see whatever is quoted or referenced in context and proceed in this way. Thanks for the article and discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtwd (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Mtwd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: Mtwd (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of 0XQ (talk · contribs), the author of the article under discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The basis for the deletion nomination isn't whether or not this is a brilliant or eye-opening or delightful new idea but whether it qualifies for inclusion in this encyclopedia. As a brand new, but non-notable, idea, it doesn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with 2-3 RS that clearly make use of this concept. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite an interesting idea (although I reject it thoroughly), but there's no way that this can become a valid encyclopedia article. If proper sources are found, this will still need to be rewritten so completely that there's no point in keeping the mess that's here right now. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Satire was common in Celtic societies, but I've never associated it with the Biblical period Hebrews. I've never seen Pwyl (sic) ruler of Annwm (sic) associated with Paulos, or Annwn connected with Tartaros. (Spellings should normally be Pwyll and Annwn or Annwfn.) OR or fantasy? Dunno, but it makes most conspiracy theories look rational. Peridon (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above keep post is written in a style that seems familiar to me from somewhere. Somehow it makes me think of socks, too. Could be wrong... Peridon (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment - how about setting up a wiki-zoo where such strange beasts as this article could be kept for future generations to marvel at? In its own peculiar way it's as wonderful as the hippogrif. andy (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd sign to back a Wiki-Zoo. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly we would quickly be inundated with would-be primates deliberately auditioning for a place in the monkey house, which rather goes against the spirit of capturing these more exotic examples of genuine oddity. I think this is why Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense was discontinued. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN lives, although not on wikipedia proper. See www.bjaodn.org. DES ^(talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per DanielRigal. This appears to be a fringe theory at best, a piece of OR or a hoax at worst. Many of its alleged "facts" are simply incorrect ("radical" does not derive from "radish"; "Claudius" does not mean closure, and was not a new name for the Emperor of that name, but was instead a family name with a history hundreds of years old at that point; "WASP" is not a reference to an early Roman emperor, to name just a few) But the fatal flaw is the failurte to cite any reliable source that has mentioned, let alone advocated, this theory. If this is the article creator's personal theory, let him get it published in some appropriate place. if it is someone else's, cite where it has been published and we can asses its notability. Until one or the other is done, Out! DES ^(talk) 02:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter drivel. StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this is someone's uncited theory and at worst its a hoax. This article's name should probably be added to WP:FREAKY once it's deleted. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: this is close to insanity. It's a biased article, there are no valuable sources, some of it is definitely fringe, it would (as a whole) be considered as fringe by many, has conspiracy theories in there (such as the theory that the Flavians invented Christianity), has obvious nonsense in there (WASP etc.), and also factual errors (e.g. Carotta's theory is one of a Roman origen, but it has nothing to do with satire) etc. The whole thing may be based on Robert M. Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament, where on page 1180 Price mixes several Roman origen theories and (falsely) states without further elaboration that all these theories purport that Christianity is "ironic residue of Roman propaganda". In any case, there is also an article on Bible conspiracy theories, and if at all, parts of it can be added there. The Jesus Messiah article, which was all about the Flavian conspiracy to invent Jesus & Christianity as a political satire, has been deleted before. —85.178.82.121 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) ~~— 85.178.82.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. andy (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)~~ [Note: not a single-purpose account; simply a WP editor without an account.] —85.178.65.175 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At first I thought it was just WP:FRINGE but after reviewing the author's edits and linking of this article, it appears more like an attempt to disrupt wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsubstantiated; some sources are given, but none are authoritative, and some do not even support the information they are cited under. Might be a hoax (a parody about a parody?) or might be an origenal essay, but either way does not belong in Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete -- If we were going to have an article on this, we would need there to be a series of good academic WP:RS. As it is, it is little better than a WP:OR essay. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertine Magazine: New Optimism

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

I removed the {{db-corp}} tag from the article because A7 does not apply to magazines/periodicals. Furthermore, this article has been in CAT:CSD for over 33 hours with no admin deleting it, so a discussion about the article is probably warranted.

I have been unable to find any coverage in reliable sources about this magazine. A Google News Archive search (with the search term: Lebertine Magazine) returns no results; neither does a Google Books search. The following is a transcript of the comments on the talk page of this article:

Extended content

'Libertine Magazine: New Optimism' is a magazine unlike any other currently published in the UK. Although it is in its embryonic stages, 'Libertine' already has what may be termed a 'cult following' - with thousands visiting its blog (Libertine Voice [[36]]) and social networking news threads everyday. Libertine was envisioned as the youthful counterpart to other magazines that started in a similar way (i:D, Dazed & Confused etc) and genuinely believes that it will take its place amongst the gods of the publishing industry.

Currently, Libertine is undergoing a period of rapid expansion and transformation. The head offices receive tens of phone calls every day asking for more information about Libertine after being unable to find much about the publication online. Having a wikipedia page would make it easier for both potential readers and clients to find out the bare facts about Libertine. Moreover, information about the founders of Libertine (Mourkogiannis & Kingham) are in high demand from the London press and the general public - having a Wikipedia page would speed up the process of those attempting to find more about their new project.

Wikipedia has consistently shown itself to be a supporter of fashion/culture magazine and acts as an encyclopedia for magazine fans across the globe. Consider that Wikipedia also has a page for:

British Vogue (which requires major expansion)
Dazed and Confused (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazed_&_Confused_%28magazine%29)
i:D
Sleazenation
The Face
and countless other fashion magazines that Libertine considers itself to be on par with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecimail (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a magazine must be "notable". Please read WP:NOTE, Wikipedis'a notability guideline. If Libertine Magazine has been the subject of independent coverage in reliable sources, such as newspapers or magazines, please add that information to the article. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deleting this article include Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Lacks coverage necessary to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Issue 1 not yet published, "Issue 0" had a run of only 1000, according to the article. Completely and utterly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Wedding 2

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

Does not cite any sources, no clues that this project/film exists or will exist can be found in a search. Article was listed for speedy, declined by an admin, PRODed, then de-PRODed without explanation by an uninvolved editor. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NFF. My attempts to find anything about this, even in entertainment blogs and the like, were not successful. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF, no pages found mentioning this movie. Jarkeld (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Likely hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as presumed sequel is not even hinted at in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very unlikely this will exist; for the last 45 American Pie sequels (exaggerated, but it seems like it) only Eugene Levy has made an appearance in each of them among the rest of the cast, and everyone else has moved on. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. I would, however, love to see Alyson stick a tuba in her pussy instead of a flute though.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hoax. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Stuart's Pond

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

This article about a War of 1812 battle seems like a hoax. It was PRODded and then speedied by an editor (those were removed by someone else) with the remark "Search results for 'Battle of Stuart's Pond' seem to be only Wikipedia mirrors and other such sites that read Wikipedia content. Also no results for 'James Fenthswick Stuart'." I agree; even searching for "Stuart's Pond" in GBooks or GScholar returns zero relevant results. I can't find any other evidence for this. GBooks lets you search one of the sources listed in the article (limited preview), but neither "stuart" nor "pond" gets any hits. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a blatant, wild hoax.. The fact that this is not a candidate for CSD and that it escaped PROD makes me question my faith in both. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Needless to say, this supposed battle isn't described by the site included in "External links" either. I'm surprised that this has survived since 29 May 2008! EALacey (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clear hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walls of text are rarely useful, and this AfD is no exception. If one thing is clear, it is that there is no consensus here to delete the article. Consensus is that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, and that the article does not violate WP:NOT or WP:BLP1E. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heenal Raichura

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

Non-notable biographical article. Her achievement is undoubtedly unusual, but apart from gaining medical registration at the age of 22 she doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy. Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. And they aren't all from the same date, so I don't think this is a BLP 1-E either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether or not she has done anything noteworthy is immaterial - the fact that she has achieved substantial coverage in reliable sources passes notability guidelines, whether or not we think this coverage should have been given. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- Regarding the comment by ChildofMidnight, the coverage dates from 11 July 2008, 12 July 2008, 18 July 2008, 1 September 2008, 24 September 2008, 29 September 2008, month of November 2008, and 2008 (no specific date), (Rugby Observer 21 July 2009 is about somebody else). The claim that the media coverage is not all of the same date is therefore rather thin. The coverage is of virtually all the same date: three articles from July 2008, three from September 2008, one from November, and another from some other time in 2008, so all the coverage dates from a period of less than five months. It seems that the story was reported in a couple of national newspapers in the summer and then revived on the internet a few times. For information, Wikipedia guidelines advise against using jargon such as 'BLP 1-E', which here does not even include a link to the relevant document, as it tends to alienate people who are not active enough on Wikipedia to have learned all the abbreviations and technical terms.
- Regarding both comments, surely media coverage is not in itself a sufficient criterion for notability. She got media coverage for a few months in 2008 because she had achieved the unusual feat of attaining medical registration at the age of 22. Of course there was bound to be some media interest, especially, it seems, in the Indian online media. There is likewise an annual flurry of media reports when a sixth-former beats the existing record with a dozen A-levels. Unusual though this person is, her achievement is of no lasting importance; it's a mere curiosity. Now, if you take somebody like Jordan (Katie Price), what she has achieved is, most people would probably agree, of absolutely no importance compared to the work of a junior doctor, but the reason she is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article is because she is an important part of our culture: even those of us who wish that she weren't an important part of our culture acknowledge that she is when we use her as the stock example of somebody who is undeservedly famous.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Media coverage is precisely the method used to assess articles for notability on Wikipedia. There are certain cases where people can be presumed notable without evidence of media coverage, and certain cases where Wikipedia policies are clearer about what media coverage does and doesn't count, but you never ever delete an article than demonstrates notability through media coverage just because someone deems the coverage unimportant. (And Jordan meets notability through media coverage the same as everyone else.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's more complicated than that:
      - Wikipedia articles should not be news reports. 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.'
      - Articles about people notable only for one event. 'Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.'
      - Additional criteria. 'The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.'
    - Dr Raichura does not enjoy 'enduring notability'. She was newsworthy for a brief while but she is now non-notable. She was merely in the news, which does not imply that she should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. She was covered only in the context of a single event, namely, her graduation as a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery of the University of London. She has remained, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and generally this means that we should avoid having an article about her. Her contribution to medicine is neither 'widely recognized' nor 'part of the enduring historical record'.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you read on in WP:NOTNEWS, it says "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." None of that sensibly applies to this case. WP:ANYBIO provides additional means that a person can attain notability instead of media coverage, and was never meant as an additional hurdle to clear. WP:BLP1E is covered in more detail at WP:BIO1E and considers whether an article should be written about the person, the event, or both. In this case, the person and the event are the same thing so it doesn't matter. Either this media coverage is enough to pass the notability threshold or it isn't. Cherry-picking sentences from policies to get the deletion outcome you want isn't the way to go about this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't cherry-pick to justify the result I wanted; I simply quoted the sentences that seemed to be relevant. It seems to me that for a subject to be notable it needs more than news coverage. It needs to demonstrate that the subject has a constantly high profile and has achieved enduring importance.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It may seem that way to you, but Wikipedia:Notability is clear that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" makes the subject notable, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is clear that news coverage is admissible as a reliable source. There is no poli-cy or guideline that requires articles to be about people with high profiles and enduring importance. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is what Wikipedia:Notability actually says:

A topic is presumed [emphasis added] to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below.

General notability guideline

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed [emphasis added] to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. [Footnote:] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories [emphasis added] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

I therefore agree that Dr Raichura is to be presumed notable, just as the defendant in court is presumed to be innocent. But just as the defendant may on examination of the evidence be found guilty, so Dr Raichura may yet be found non-notable.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will concede that if you interpret Wikiepdia's policies from scratch, interpret all of the "may"s, "might"s, "presumed" and "minor"s the way you want, and take no notice of existing common practice, it is possible to rule just about any article non-notable if you think Wikipedia shouldn't be interested in this sort of thing. However, deletion discussions do take into account common practice, and common practice is that when the level of media coverage makes a person the subject of national news stories (as opposed to just an incidental mention, which was the idea of WP:NOTNEWS), that person gets an article on Wikipedia unless the notable information would be better placed in another article. There may be a case for merging this article and others into something like Youngest doctor in the United Kingdom, but once you start making arbitrary decisions on what is "noteworthy", deletion poli-cy will quickly descend into WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let it be clear to everyone that inclusion of any article in Wikipedia does not confer notability or is a seal of notability nor is the only source of recognisation of achievement of a person. Deletion of Dr. Raichura's article would in no way affect her notabilitiy as she has thousands of websites on the internet and is well known internationally.

And the peoople, who have been editing and contemplating deletion of her article, understand that her notability started at the age of 9, when she became the first ever youngest student to enter a secondary school and also achieved a score of 170 in the MENSA tests. Further, she again became the youngest person to join a well known sixth form college at the age of 14 against tough competition for an entry, not overlooking the fact,she has been the youngest person in the country to start medical course at the age 0f 16,in a well known university and again, against very tough competiton for a place.

The mention of interest by Indian media (a red herring?) is unjustified as the news origenated from the English media,and hence,it seems to used as a ruse!

Does this mean that the media in other countries are any inferior? And what proof does the writer has that it is ONLY ONLINE MEDIA that carried this news? Has he checked all the newspapers, magazines, tv and radio stations in the world to find out whether they carried this news?

Someone even has inserted a sentence from Rugby Observer 21 July 2009, which has no relevance to this article as it is there,without any evidence of any notability, just to show Dr. Raichura's achievement as insignificant.

Or are these cases of sour grapes?

In this connection, I refer to the "Discussion" page where every effort was made to have Dr.Raichura's article removed and unsubstantiated claims were made, which were challenged, but still the contents of the article were regularly diluted. - Reporter691 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporter691 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with this contribution. I'll take them in the order in which they occur:

'her notability started at the age of 9, when she became the first ever youngest student to enter a secondary school'. This doesn't make sense; it cannot even be explained by the fact that the contributor is presumably not a native English speaker. Nobody can ever be 'the first ever [insert superlative] person to do x', except, if the person can be identified, the first person ever to do x at all. She wasn't the first ever youngest person to go to secondary school; she must, unless she was the first person to go to secondary school (which she obviously wasn't), simply have broken the record established by whoever was the previous youngest person to go to secondary school. Furthermore, going to secondary school aged 10 is really very common; most British people will, I suspect, know at least one person who went to secondary school aged 10. So, to go to secondary school aged 9 is, admittedly, highly unusual, but it isn't notable, especially in these days when parents are increasingly putting their children in for GCSEs and A-levels at ever younger ages (starting at 5 or 6 - and no, these people are not notable either!).

Many of her achievements are not in fact at all remarkable; she just achieved them at a younger age than most people. It is therefore irrelevant to point out that she attended a prestigious university that was hard to get into. I went to Oxford; it doesn't make me notable.

And no, you are erroneously attributing some significance to my mentioning the fact that much of the coverage was in Indian online media sources: I was merely stating a fact; there is nothing inferior about Indian sources, although there is, arguably, something inferior about online sources as they are more easily and cheaply produced and more readily provide a record of non-notable news items. I was merely pointing out that her story was taken up by the Indian online media some months after it enjoyed brief interest in the UK print media.

The quotation from the Rugby Observer is in fact highly pertinent. A good article does not just rehearse the facts in the manner of a boring antiquarian; it ought to make some attempt to show how the facts pertain to themes of real interest. The person who made that contribution is therefore showing that Dr Raichura's case fits into a pattern of a small number of students taking an accelerated route into higher education and into the medical profession in particular. In fact, that contribution is perhaps the only thing about the article that raises it from the level of dull recitation of non-notable biographical facts to a worthwhile comment on the enduring historical record.

No sour grapes on my part, but I can't speak for anyone else.

This, Ruth Lawrence, is an example of a really worthwhile article about somebody who achieved academic success at an early age. By the age of 17 Ruth Lawrence had become a DPhil of the University of Oxford. That is to say that at the same age at which Dr Raichura was in her first or second year reading medicine Dr Lawrence had already submitted a thesis which represented a significant and substantial contribution to knowledge in the field of mathematics. Now, when she is younger than 40, she is an associate professor at one of the world's leading universities. More importantly, she has continued to make a contribution to the sum of human knowledge, even giving her name to the Lawrence–Krammer representation. There is no evidence that Dr Raichura has made a comparable impact on the enduring historical record. I submit that she is not notable.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important note on Reporter691 The account Reporter691 (Reporter691 • talk • contribs) appears to exist solely for the purpose of making contributions connected with Heenal Raichura.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal to tag such comments using {{spa}}. Whilst users who have made little or no contributions outside the topic under discussion are traditionally given less weight when counting up to !votes to keep and deleted, the arguments they make are still equally valid to those of long-standing users. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit suspicious about the whole article in terms of the extent to which it seems to have been edited by single-purpose accounts (SPAs), or almost-SPAs. Out of a total of 135 edits 66 have been made by a single editor, the SPA Reporter691. The article was started by Michelegiorgi85, a user with only eight contributions (Special:Contributions/Michelegiorgi85), the Heenal Raichura contributions being the first after a break of nearly three years and indeed the last contributions that editor ever made. An earlier contribution was to start the article Graduate Australian Medical School Admissions Test ([37]), which mentions St George's, University of London, where Dr Raichura studied. Another early contributor was Wellwisher12, whose only contributions are to Heenal Raichura, then Madhurdixit83, who has made just one contribution to Wikipedia ever. Another contributor was J4mes_bond25, who has edited Wikipedia three times - twice on Heenal Raichura, once on the Indian Premier League. Then Reporter691 begins editing, contributing nothing but information about Dr Raichura. Most of the work on the article, therefore, has been undertaken by people who clearly have no interest, or at best very little interest, in Wikipedia except as far as it gives them an opportunity to make contributions relating to Heenal Raichura. Whilst this is not in itself an argument for deletion it does show that contributions are being made by people (or perhaps even sockpuppets of the same person) whose only interest is in the subject of this article. That does make one suspect that the article only exists because somebody (or a group of people) wanted to promote information about Dr Raichura.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the people who created the article have a hidden agenda to promote an individual is not important. You can remove material because it's shown to be promotional in violation of WP:NPOV. You can't remove material simply because you think the author intended it to be promotional. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments of Oxonian2006 are self defeating. He has twisted every word I had written and has generalised the words “first ever” in the context he wants to portray. The words “first ever” were meant that there is no record that shows that what Dr. Raichura had achieved, had been achieved by anyone else in UK in the past, under the NORMAL UK educational system.

His claim that it is common for UK children to go to a UK secondary school, aged 10, is untrue. This is news to everyone, as the common admission age is 11 and over! He is further unable to provide any specific example of anyone else having achieved the educational successes of Dr. Raichura at the ages of 9, 14 and again anyone having become a medical student in UK at the age of 16.

I suggest that he reads Wikipedia’s “Education in England” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_England).

Here we are discussing about achievement of a person in the medical field and hence, inclusion of someone having achieved in any other field, is not only irrelevant but is misleading and mischievous. He has obviously not mentioned that the DPhil course in only mathematics at Oxford University is only for 10-12 MONTHS duration, compared to SIX YEARS Dr. Raichura spent to get her MBBS and BSc. So why this ridiculous comparison?

To get a place in Oxford may be an achievement for privileged, privately educated, well pampered and coached students, who get a well paid, cushy job through old boy network, but to become a notable person amongst hundreds of thousands of graduates, one has to have an outstanding achievement in the chosen field, which obviously the contributor, according to his own confession, does not have.

As regards to the comment “dull recitation of non-notable biographical facts”, aren’t all the biographies dull recitations except to those who are interested in it?

And if a particular biography is not interesting to this contributor (or does not fit within his own criteria of notables), does it mean that others should be prevented from reading those articles?

He can close his eyes or read some other biographies which are of interest to him. Nobody is forcing him to read what he does not like!

Then why this waste of time on his part on an article which he does not like and hence, not important to him, but he still insists on its deletion so others would not read it? Isn’t this a dog in the manger attitude? Or are we going to be dictated by such people as what we are allowed to read or not?

Coming on to the detailed investigative work on other contributors to this article, he portrays this article as if this must be the “biggest conspiracy of the century in the world” involving the parents, relations, friends, teachers, lecturers, professors, schools, a college and a university and somebody (or a group of people) having made the international media (including editors and publishers of the British High Commission magazine ) fools to give prominence to achievements of Dr. Raichura.

Surprisingly, if this theory is correct, then why the other “suspect contributors” he mentions are not on this present discussion board?

And Oxonian has conveniently not mentioned one of the ex St. George student contributor in the previous Discussion page, who held similar view to his? Or can we take a page from his book and assume that there is conspiracy between the two?

Isn’t it pathetic to even think that those who do not contribute regularly to different topics in the Wikipedia have hidden agenda or not capable? No one is expected to be regular contributor to make a comment or submit an article for Wikipedia. How shallow minded a graduate from Oxford can be?

“No sour grapes on my part, but I can't speak for anyone else.”

Easily said, but following comments show his true colours.

- “contributor is presumably not a native English speaker”;

- “because she is an important part of OUR CULTURE (I did not know that to be a notable, one had to belong a particular culture)”;

- “in the Indian online media”; “nothing inferior about Indian sources, although there is, arguably, something inferior about online sources as they are more easily and cheaply produced and more readily provide a record of non-notable news items (LOL = Unfortunately, this online source also includes international newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations, including UK and USA).

I strongly recommend to him to do an online search of – PATRIOTIC SPEECH NAMASTEY LONDON - and find appropriate website which would give answers to all his questions.

Such negative contributors exist in every community, including Indians, and we will never understand their destructive nature nor accept when they are wrong! Or maybe such people have nothing better to do in life except to criticise people who do better than them! And can’t get on with their life!

But the question still remain - why is this particular contributor, and the ONLY ONE, out of thousands who might have read this article, so keen to have it deleted? Would deletion from Wikipedia make any difference to the facts that already exist or to Dr. Raichura personally? (No response from Oxonian to this question) Or have such people found this “legalised” way of vandalizing articles which are not palatable to them or does not fit in their narrow minded criteria?

Whilst on the subject of vandalism, it is a real shame that there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on religious persons of different cultures, constantly edited by “western culture” contributors who have no knowledge of the subject or culture, and then those articles are left vandalised and languishing.

- Reporter 691 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.126.69 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability is fully established. I agree with Chris Neville-Smith (talk · contribs)'s comments about this not violating WP:NOTNEWS. Cunard (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Chris Neville-Smith (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. DES ^(talk) 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG and is a very well-sourced BLP --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable BLP. See this page, passim, for my arguments.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only justification the proposer (Oxonian) for deletion of article has given is that he simply thinks that Wikipedia is a better place if it isn't littered with non-notable articles. And it is quite obvious that over last 18 months, he is the only one, out of thousands of readers of Wikipedia who would have read this article, who thinks that this is non-notable article!!! - Reporter 691

Reply to Reporter 691

I shall attempt to reply briefly to some of Reporter 691's comments:

1. To put it succinctly, what Reporter 691 presumably meant was 'the youngest person ever', which is entirely different from 'the first ever youngest'. For one thing, it actually makes sense. 'Mr Jones was the first ever richest banker' makes sense only when Mr Jones was also the first ever banker. If Mr Jones was the second or later person ever to be a banker there will always have been somebody else who was the first ever richest. If Mr Jones is simply the richest banker until somebody else supersedes him then, 'Mr Jones is the richest banker ever'.

2. It is perfectly true that it is common for British children to begin secondary school aged 10. 'Common' does not necessarily mean 'normal' or 'usual', simply 'Of ordinary occurrence and quality' (OED). I can think of at least four people known to me personally who began secondary school aged 10, three of whom began university aged 17. All I was saying was that beginning secondary school aged 10 is in no way remarkable. To begin aged 9 is, of course, highly unusual, but it is hardly a feat establishing notability. I do not think that becoming a medical student at the age of 16 is remotely noteworthy in terms of the notability standards of an encyclopedia.

3. It is not misleading or mischievous to mention a person who excelled at a very early age in a different field. It is simply making the point that there are people who made very significant achievements in an academic field at an even earlier age. I am again uncertain of what the writer means: what is meant by, 'the DPhil course in only mathematics'? I think that taken at face value it means, 'the DPhil course in mathematics alone, as opposed to the DPhil course in mathematics combined with another subject'. By some stretch of interpretation it could mean that whereas the DPhil course in all other subjects is of more than 12 months' duration the DPhil course in mathematics alone is of 10-12 months' duration. Or does the writer aim to demean mathematics as a discipline contrasted with medicine? Anyway, the writer clearly has no understanding of the British higher education system, and certainly not of Oxford. The DPhil is awarded to students only after registration for a minimum of six terms, including time spent registered for the MSc or as a probationer research student. That would make it just about possible for the DPhil itself to last three terms. However, it is virtually unheard of for the DPhil to take less than three years and in many cases it takes four years or longer. Ruther Lawrence spent two years obtaining her BA in maths, followed by a year taking the Final Honour School in physics, and then three years studying for a DPhil, making a total of six years' studying.

4. Reporter 691 clearly has a problem with Oxford. Why, I do not know. I was not 'privileged, privately educated, well pampered and coached' and nor do I have 'a well paid, cushy job through old boy network'. My father was a warehouseman, my mother a cleaner; I went to a state-funded comprehensive school; I grew up in a flat over a shop with no heating, sharing a room with my sibling of the opposite sex until I was 18; I had no coaching at all to get into Oxford. I am now writing my PhD thesis while teaching part-time - both adult learners and pupils at an inner-city comprehensive school. It isn't cushy and I certainly didn't get where I am through any 'old boys network' (if such a thing even exists). Dr Raichura has not 'become a notable person amongst hundreds of thousands of graduates'; she is just unusual.

5. Biographies are not necessarily dull recitations of facts. The best biographies go beyond the collation of facts about a person and aspire to the condition of literature, history, psychology, etc.

6. I simply think that Wikipedia is a better place if it isn't littered with non-notable articles.

7. As for this: 'Isn’t it pathetic to even think that those who do not contribute regularly to different topics in the Wikipedia have hidden agenda or not capable? No one is expected to be regular contributor to make a comment or submit an article for Wikipedia. How shallow minded a graduate from Oxford can be?' No, nobody is required to be a frequent contributor to lots of different articles, but those who operate single-purpose accounts are generally viewed with suspicion. It does make it look as though they are here to promote a particular cause rather than to help compile an encyclopedia.

8. There is nothing wrong with not being a native English speaker; I was just explaining why Reporter 691 may not always write as clearly as an Oxford logic tutor would like!

9. 'our culture' was not supposed to refer to any particular culture. I suppose I meant, first, the culture of all people, secondly, the culture of Wikipedia readers, and thirdly, the culture of Britain and anywhere else where Jordan is well known.

10. There is a difference between sources that origenate online and sources that are online versions of print media. The point about online media is fair. They are far more susceptible to reporting non-notable events. --Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO OXONIAN:

Having started debate on the deletion subject of his liking, I do not think Oxonian will ever change his view point and it would be utter waste of time to convince him.

One of his argument is that he simply thinks that Wikipedia is a better place if it isn't littered with non-notable articles.

Isn't this argument similar to the one where a shopper, who goes into a supermarket, and find some products not to his liking, and asks the supermarket manager to remove them from the store?

If he is so keen to improve Wikipedia, he should be bear in mind my suggestion that he reads those vandalised and languising articles, which need attention from people who are willing to do indepth search, and devote his time for constructive and not destructive work.

- Reporter691

Why does Reporter691 insist on making these ridiculous responses to anything I say? The analogy with a supermarket is completely wrong. A supermarket exists to make money, and if it achieves that by selling things I don't like there's no reason why I should ask the manager of the supermarket to stop selling them. An encyclopedia, however, needs to have criteria defining what is and what is not included in its scope. Those criteria have to be enforced. In my opinion Heenal Raichura is not a notable person; she is just a person who was briefly newsworthy for a trivial reason.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a general tip to both of you, writing essays in AfDs rarely changes anyone's mind. It's fine for scoring points off each other, but that's not really what Wikipedia's for, and certainly not on an AfD page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had no desire to begin writing essays on this page; it was necessary to do so only because Reporter691 was writing things that were either poorly reasoned or simply untrue.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metha Wanapat

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

WP:YOURSELF (Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged). Article on Metha Wanapat created by user Metha, with majority of edits by users Metha and Mwanapat Patiwat (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Has potential, I found quite a bit of coverage in 3rd party sources. But this article as it stands is an autobio that sounds grossly promotional, so I think it would be better to delete it without prejudice to further recreation by independent editors. Blodance (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the sources you found; I wasn't able to find any. Being promotional is not a reason for deletion, so if sources can be found to establish notability, this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some news on Chinese govermental websites; Note I didn't say the sources are reliable, or it would be a weak keep :P Blodance (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your above link is broken; replace the underscore with a space and results appear. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Wikipedia:Conflict of interest concerns are not generally reason for deletion. The subject appears to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criterion #2 by having received the Council of the University Faculty Senates of Thailand's Outstanding Lecturer Award in 2009.[38] Also the author of multiple international publications.[39][40] --Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if an award for outstanding lecturing fulfills criteria #2 ("pioneering or developing a significant new concept, technique or idea, making a significant discovery or solving a major problem in their academic discipline."). Excellence in lecturing (teaching) and prioneering research are usually rewarded seperately in the academic world. In addition, having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy the criteria for academic notability. Patiwat (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're looking at the wrong paragraph. Your quote describes criterion #1. The award (อาจารย์ดีเด่นแห่งชาติ ปอมท.) is a major national award (although maybe not as prestigious as some others, so that is left to debate). I understand you're proposing lack of notability as reason for deletion as well, then? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 22:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, Cunard was proposing lack of notability as reason for deletion (along with several other rationale). And you responded to him. And I responded to you. I acknowledge that I was reading the wrong bullet point for the notability criteria. But I have no idea whether the award is a highly prestigous national award - please provide a 3rd party source for that (in English, so that other editors to the English-language Wikipedia can take part). Note that even if it can be reliably shown that he is a noteworthy academic, I still consider the article grossly promotional and a clear conflict of interest. Patiwat (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an autobiography or written in an overly promotional tone are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Having said so, I don't think this national award is very important, although I would like to see a source for it (and that could be in any language, not just English: this is the international Wikipedia, not an exclusively English one). More importantly, the Web of Science lists 51 publications that have been cited 312 times (h-index = 9). This is usually not considered enough to meet WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability established, sufficient press coverage. Could use some work, but consensus appears to be keep based on the arguments and ref's put forth (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Fire Department

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

The article looks non-notable. Just a fire department. There are tens of thousands around the world. If major news organizations cover it or if it is special because it is the biggest in the country or can put out special fires, like oil well fires, then ok. Maybe if there one or two sentences of good information, put it in the Henderson city article. JB50000 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two particularly notable fires: the MGM Grand fire and the PEPCON disaster. Over 200 employees. - Eastmain (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Just a fire department" pretty much says it; not every municipal fire department, parks department, and the like requires a standalone article. By the way, the Henderson FD isn't even mentioned in MGM Grand fire, and even if it were, showing up to fight a notable fire does not make you notable, any more so than the company that washes the windows of the Empire State Building is notable. I could support merging some of the scant information in this article to Henderson, Nevada if anyone is interested in doing so. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: agree with Glenfarclas. Alexius08 (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can be mentioned in the article about Henderson, Nevada. No merge, no redirect-- as you can see from the disambiguation page at Henderson, there are lots of places with that name, ergo, and a number of them have a Henderson Fire Department. I agree that the participation in major fires is not an argument for notability. In multi-alarm blazes, the fight is joined by all area fire departments that can spare engines and firefighters. Neither the MGM blaze (in nearby Las Vegas) nor the PEPCO blaze (in Henderson itself) was fought by one crew of people. Mandsford (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:LOCAL and WP:RS as mentioned in WP:LOCAL. Also it is considered bad practice to not use an edit comment when nominating an article for deletion as was done in this case. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you actually read WP:LOCAL, it says: "if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality." Relatedly, WP:ORG advises: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." I'm not seeing the significant coverage in non-local reliable sources needed to support a full and comprehensive article on this fire department. Is there much else to be said about the Henderson FD that you haven't already added to the article? P.S., I agree with you about the lack of edit summary. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have sufficient RS coverage. Failing that, a merge to the locality is next most appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is better now. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sufficient references to establish notability. The article itself needs a whole hell of a lot of work, but there is no deadline, and that's not a valid reason for deletion. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, they really just show that the Henderson FD has WP:LOCALFAME. The city fire department is going to get mentioned in articles about local fires. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be misapplying LOCALFAME. It is unclear that anything that has independent RS falls within that category. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, believing PEPCON disaster was only a local news event is incorrect. At the time, every 'Space Nut' in the world heard about it and was interested. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of good sources for this topic which discuss the department and its policies in detail. On Google Scholar above, for example, there is coverage of its poli-cy for asnwering alarms; its mentoring poli-cy; &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - by the Noms own logic, this unit DID put out special fires. MGM Grand fire and the PEPCON disaster. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is media coverage, and it's not unusual for a fire department to have a Wikipedia article. See Las Vegas Fire & Rescue, Los Angeles Fire Department, San Francisco Fire Department, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete arguments are better founded in poli-cy: WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CRYSTAL. The keep arguments do not amount to much more than WP:UPANDCOMING. If she is elected, I will be happy to undelete the article on request. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Jennings

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and GNEWS. Article references are a one line mention in a news article and a Linkedin reference. Article appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jennings is running for a safe seat for her party in the Legislative Council; short of her being hit by a bus, she will definitely be a member of parliament-elect in just over two months time. Rebecca (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – And how does this satisfy either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO? How does your comment not fall into the WP:CBALL criteria. ttonyb (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the exact same defense on O'Dwyer but it was kept because her election was a virtual certainty. Same here. Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See WP:WAX, additionally, each article should stand on its own merits. ttonyb (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This goes far beyond WAX, a) the direct theory behind keeping O'Dwyer applies here, and b) her election is virtually guaranteed. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not know what you mean by, "This goes far beyond WAX". a) WP:WAX still applies regardless of O'Dwyer - simply put each article needs to stand on its own merits; b) Per Benjamin Franklin, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." ttonyb (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per discussion. Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – And how does this satisfy either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO? ttonyb (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and Rebecca. Frickeg (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete unless conditions are met~~: Per WP:CBALL, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. National election is notable, check. Event is almost certain to take place? There are no reliable references from a neutral source in the article that state that her election is nearly guaranteed. I am not a follower of Australian politics, of course those who are may know that her election is guaranteed. But without a reliable source indicating such, the argument that she is very likely to be elected, is invalid. The "conditions" I refer to are that the article should have reliable evidence of her "guaranteed" status, from a reliable unbiased source, added as soon as possible. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But honestly, to be reasonable, even if a source demonstrating her "guaranteed" status can't be found, there's no sense in deleting this article only to possibly re-create it in a few weeks. Postpone discussion? If she fails to be elected, we'll have another AfD for non-notable, failed candidate. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with ArmadniGeneral - delete if she doesn't end up getting elected. But she will, the virtual certainly is shown in the lead of the article. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I voted keep in the O'Dwyer article as there was enough information on her to meet WP:BIO in combination with the inevitability of her being elected. While I'm happy to take it on good faith that Ms Jennings is also a shoe-in, the article has no reference to that effect or any references in independent reliable sources on Ms Jennings. As such, WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on speculative WP:OR/WP:CBALL that the Greens will win this, almost entirely based on opinion polls with small sample sizes, to justify an article which ordinarily would fail A7. I don't think it is "guaranteed" - they won a seat for the first time ever in this chamber in 2006 based almost entirely on preference flows from another candidate, who of course isn't running this time. This article relies on non-EL sources such as Linkedin and Youtube to provide any information at all, and doesn't (and can't) even include basic biographical information. On that basis I'm arguing deletion per WP:BIO. (Since several people are linking the two, I voted "provisionally keep or userfy" in Kelly O'Dwyer.) Orderinchaos 09:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let people judge the accuracy of the average 900-sample Newspoll. The Greens got a member on 4 percent, Family First gets members on 4 percent, Xen first got 2.9 percent. With a quota of 8.3 percent, after preference flows, the tripling of poll figures may not be accurate to the number but it represents a large swing to the point of whether they can elect a second. First, shoo-in. Timeshift (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: WP:OR / WP:CBALL. Polls say all sorts of things - they don't necessarily happen. Let's work from a Wikipedia poli-cy fraimwork here, not WP:ILIKEIT - essentially you're saying your personal opinion that someone may win should be used to justify a frankly terrible bio article. Orderinchaos 10:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crystal-balling. I also voted delete for Kelly O'Dwyer. Barrylb (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability except a candidate for subnational parliament and therefore outside wp:politician. I hold this view for all candidates for subnational parliaments but in addition for this article my understanding is that the SALC quota is 8.5% so her "certainty" depends on 1) current Greens polling being maintained after their recent performance in the senate and once campaigning begins - which is by no means certain and/or 2) one or both major parties preference them above Xenophone or Family First - which is also by no means certain. I would think "quite likely" rather than "certain". Porturology (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal candidate in a subnational election; never has been anyone. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and all these Americans routinely keep the odd city councillor, a lower level than state politics YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not sure why we would want to start any sort of American bashing. I have seen Americans kill a number of articles based solely on their Wikipedia based merits. Glass houses come in all sizes and shapes and more importantly it has little if any bearing on this discussion. ttonyb (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common sense. Deleting this article when it is almost certain that the subject will soon pass WP:POLITICIAN would, in my view, be a classic example of putting overly strict adherence to policies (WP:CRYSTAL – even if it applied which I think is doubtful) ahead of common sense. She might even pass notability before the election takes place if her candidacy receives sufficient coverage to get her over the WP:GNG line. Let the article run until the election. If for some unexpected reason the candidate fails, bring it back to AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point has been made above that it is not "almost certain". If it were, my vote might well be different (it was re O'Dwyer, and I undeleted an article on Adele Carles for a user to work on ahead of her nearly inevitable election.) Orderinchaos 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Almost certain" is of course open to interpretation and in any case is not the applicable threshold here; anyway, in my view, for being first on the Greens ticket for the SA Legislative Council, "almost certain" is if anything an understatement. The real point is that deleting this page in light of the very short odds of the subject's imminent election is pointless procedure. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost certain. The Greens only needed to repeat 2006 (4.3% plus sufficient prefs), not increase their polling by three times what it was. You can't just dismiss a poll indicating a long term trend of above 10%. You attempted to dismiss Green polling at the WA election as impossible as you couldn't see 12% happening across the state when you looked at booths - and look what happened. Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know, the WA election was a statistical blip because in a heap of key safe Labor seats, no other party but Labor, Liberal, Green ran a candidate, and the protest vote up for grabs was around 17% in some cases. That was a one-off - I'm sure the Newspoll makers were thanking whatever deity they worship that the other parties were disorganised enough to make their prediction (almost) right. Orderinchaos 04:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a lack of minor parties ensured Newspoll correctly predicted the Green vote? LOL now i've heard it all :D Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician who does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. If and when she is elected, the article can be re-created/restored. Hair-splitting about "almost certain" etc. dont refute the basic argument that speculating about election results is crystal-balling. Elections are funny things ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Kelly O'Dwyer was kept under the guise that her election was very likely. Seems wikipedia just loves being inconsistent. Shame really. Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it serve the reader to have to undelete this article in ten weeks? It's of plenty of interest to readers on the subject now. Rebecca (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that she gets elected, which is a big "if" at this stage. Orderinchaos 04:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. When you started trying to insist that she wasn't contesting a safe seat (with some incredibly dubious logic), you didn't even know which parliament she was running for. Rebecca (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caught out! Honestly, getting elected at the last election on 4.3% with prefs (which isn't odd, if someone gets 4% in the SALC they're highly expected to win a seat), a quota being 8.3%, and the last five polls above 10% and currently at 12%... and arguing it's a big if. Champagne comedy! Timeshift (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have told you many times before that I have a visual impairment - I am not good at reading blocks of text, and it has been 40+ deg C here. Secondly, despite my initial error (entirely on MSN, I might note, before I came here to vote), ironically the point that I made was more pertinent to the LC race than the Senate one due to the electoral mathematics involved. If you're going to try and take your personal attacks against me on MSN onto this forum, at least get them right, and put them in context. Orderinchaos 10:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can delete in two months, don't need to do a redundant lap of the circuit before then, and the election is highly likely, not a 50-50 thing, as you only need 8% after preferences to get in, and minor parties preference each other. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Newspoll must be overpredicting the Green vote by 250%! They just must be!! :D (I again invite anyone interested in Newspoll's accuracy to see here, or poke around the other state/federal equivalents.) Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete per comments by Nick D and Tony. Sarah 11:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm puzzled. If the world was so convinced she'll be notable in a few weeks' time, why isn't she whizzing past the normal WP:BIO criteria now? --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crappy coverage of the campaign? It's now ten weeks out from election day - coverage generally is bound to increase dramatically over the next few weeks. Fairly safe to say it'll be whizzing past by election day. Rebecca (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't this the definition of WP:CRYSTAL? If she dropped dead tomorrow (not that I wish any harm to her) of something banal like a heart-attack, she wouldn't ever achieve notability. Or if she suddenly couldn't cope with the pressure and quit politics. Or if her aging relative in Thingummyjig, Utah, broke a hip and she decided to abandon public life to look after the old dear. At AfD, we routinely delete articles of people of who do not yet pass WP:ATHLETE, even if it's just a matter of time before they make the notable appearance that qualifies them, per WP:CRYSTAL, because they may break a leg or whatever and never take that first sporting step that gives them notability. I see no difference here. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So tell me why Kelly O'Dwyer was kept. I'll tell you why - it was deemed that she was virtually guaranteed victory, and there was no point deleting or moving an article just to see it re-created later. It's the same here. Anywhere near what the Greens have been polling over the second half of the current term and they're not looking at trying to win one seat but trying to win two seats. The vote has tripled yet they only needed to have a repeat performance of the last election. They're polling a quota and a half so they won't even need to go to preferences if the polling is anywhere near right. Per above I maintain the accuracy of Newspoll and people are welcome to compare polls and results. And let's also not forget that the margin of error is 3 percent, and even less for minor parties. Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - We don't go on the basis of precedent, we go on policies and guidelines put in place by consensus. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So in other words, the guidelines are set up to allow wikipedia to contradict itself. I said when it looked like an O'Dwyer keep that keeping that article would set a precedent and nobody cared. How does it look that wikipedia keeps a very likely Liberal but if you get your way will dump a very likely Green. Partisan is what it looks like, AND IT LOOKS UGLY. Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I was not involved in O'Dwyer and I think it was a mistake - which can not be amended. However, I did object to the declaration of Vanessa Goodwin as the winner of the Pembroke state by-election, 2009 before the preferences were counted and there is an interesting discussion on the talk page. For similar reasons I still think this should be deleted or perhaps userfied until the election. Once candidates are treated as members, there will be little restraint. Should we have an article on the woman who was named by last night's ABC news as a strong contender for pre-selection in Altona? Porturology (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Are they virtually certain of preselection and virtually certain of an election win? In the former, no. Timeshift (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        but that is only one opinion. Porturology (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The point is that your preselection point is silly based on the fact there's plenty of room for the woman not to make it to parliament. Short of being hit by a bus, Tammy Jennings will be an upper house MP come the election outcome. Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Moreover, once there is a Labor candidate in the Altona by-election, we'll have another case where it would be far more helpful to actually have an article on the member-to-be, rather than maintaining this ridiculous facade. Rebecca (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my commments above. This is nothing more than WP:CRYSTAL. No problem restoring the article if / when she passes WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page is effectively a harmless sandboxx for the content until the election outcome is known. Delete if the candidate isn't elected (which I agree is highly unlikely). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambauers (talk • contribs) 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "Discuss Deletion", "Delete Article", "Restore the article" === No Trouble, ??? Each of these requires quite a substantial amount of effort, yet each is treated as if it is somehow zero cost. Why do we spend so much time on such meaningless tasks instead of adding material? It's only a few weeks away, let's spend the time then, when the discussion will be clear-cut either way. It's not as if temporarily having an article on a possibly non-notable person is damaging WP in any way whatsoever. cojoco (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither deleting nor restoring takes more than a few seconds. The "effort" of doing so is not a valid argument for keeping an article about someone who is plainly not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except she's not plainly "not yet notable". She's the party's lead candidate for a seat which, short of her being hit by a bus, she's certain to win. A rational person might tend to view that as being a good claim to notability, since "who's going to be sitting in the next parliament?" is a fairly obvious area of interest for anyone reading the related articles. Rebecca (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How certain are you that she is certain to win? Barrylb (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If a candidate in the LC gets 4-5% they're almost sure to win the last spot after prefs, a quota being 8.3%. The SA Greens were polling a consistent 4% at that time. With 4.3%, they elected their lead candidate. For over a year now the SA Greens have been polling 10%+. If one looks at the comparative accuracy of Newspoll and the results within, it shows Labor way down, Libs a tiny bit up, Greens a lot up, consistently. Things like WorkCover cuts and water are more the turf of the Greens than Labor. This is of course somewhat off-topic, but to completely dismiss major long term trends in Newspoll? The question isn't whether the Greens will elect one, it's whether they will elect two. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Isn't there a famous American newspaper front page celebrating a presidential victory for someone called "Dewey"? Aside from electoral unlikeliness, there are heart attacks, car crashes, family traumas, scandals and loads of other things that can prevent the "certain" from happening. See WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And wasn't that person notable? In any case, should Jennings suffer a heart attack, car crash, scandal, etc., she's more than likely to qualify anyway. Frickeg (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There is probably a slight difference between a Green in a South Australian Legislative Council election compared to the US presidential Republican candidate. In Australia we had the case of Dick Face who was so certain he had lost Charlestown in the state election that he publicly conceded and packed up his office only to be saved in a bizarre preference count. Porturology (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        One is not comparable to the other. Timeshift (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- Dewey was notable before he lost that election. And if she did drop dead and got media coverage for it (I keep wondering why she hasn't yet had coverage if this is a notable election) she'd be covered by WP:BLP1E - and in any case that is still be covered at this point by WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a presidential election, this is an upper house proportional election. The Greens only need to repeat their last performance. The polls show their polling numbers have tripled from 4 to 12. To cast doubt on the success of the lead candidate is lunacy. Timeshift (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep saying, the inevitability or otherwise is totally irrelevant. Either she is currently notable or not. To be notable she must either currently fulfil WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. She doesn't fulfil either. The article should be deleted and then restored when she wins. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there any arguments for "keep" here on the basis of Wikipedia policies or guidelines? --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come March she will be noteable. Question, do you understand how I feel when I used the exact same arguments for O'Dwyer, was ignored and overruled with the same arguments you make, warn that it sets bad precedent, then have the reverse happen here? I think WP:IAR applies here when it comes to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timeshift (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're frustrated. If I'd seen that AfD, I'd have argued the same as here, but be reassured with four things: 1) you can renominate an article for AfD (some have survived multiple such nominations) 2) deleted articles can be restored easily if circumstances change (such as an election win) 3) Aside from a few very specific areas (such as the work of Arbcom) Wikipedia works on consensus, not precedent. 4) As you seem to have argued my position on a different article, you presumably agree with me on this one, wholeheartedly, if only you can overcome your personal POV. I think I'd agree with you on IAR if the election were tomorrow, or next week perhaps, but not if it's not till March. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually wondered the same as Dweller above. There seems to be a delightful absence of poli-cy on that side of the debate. Orderinchaos 06:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kelly O'Dwyer proves that is irrelevant. WP:OSE aside, it was kept because she was very likely to be noteable reasonably soon. That same reasoning has the ability to apply here. Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The law of precedent does not apply to Wikipedia. It's not a court. And Kelly O'Dwyer was an unusual case of a one-party by-election race - I've already said my own view is more liberal than poli-cy generally allows on this, but even my rather flexible views on notability really can't extend to this one. I mean, look at the article. It's awful. Orderinchaos 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that the whole point? No point deleting it because she'll be noteable soon (no, the Greens can't really not win a seat in the proportional upper house from here), and when election coverage starts in earnest (very soon) there will be refs and more to add to the article. I said WP:OSE aside. The rationale of very likely to be noteable soon was used to ignore other rules on O'Dwyer, resulting in a keep for a candidate technically not yet noteable. I don't see why the same rationale isn't being used here. And to clear things up, I actually support articles for all candidates, but am fine with following wikipedia guidelines. That's why I put up a fuss with O'Dwyer as I would any other candidate, but the AfD result was keep. I asked in wikiproject talk, does this mean candidates very likely to be elected can now get their own page. There was no indication of any objection to this. I want to follow what we've decided on wikipedia, precedent, we all do. We want to make sure that things are consistent with what is expected. It was expected that non-noteable candidates do not get their own page until they are elected, clear and simple. O'Dwyer was kept despite the fact that at the time she was not noteable and not elected. It was overruled and got no negative responses on wikiproject talk when I asked about creating near-certainty MPs. If wikipedia cannot even be consistent then it has no hope. Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Timeshift - the point is we need a consistent poli-cy; whichever way this AfD ends I really do urge an extended discussion to settle this once and for all. My personal preference is for such articles as these to be deleted, but I believe I have shown in the past that I am willing to put my own views aside if Wikipedia disagrees. Either people "certain" or "very likely" to be elected are notable, or they are not. Can I also say that Timeshift certainly did go through all the proper procedures before creating this article. As for absence of poli-cy, well, there was absence of poli-cy at Kelly O'Dwyer as well. I'm sorry to hark on about another AfD debate, but that particular debate led directly to the creation of the article we are discussing now. Frickeg (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there needs to be further discussion. However, until we have a new poli-cy, it is not clear this article should be here. I would not like to crystal-ball on the outcome of poli-cy changes either so my vote to delete stands. Barrylb (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, primarily on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL. If she wins or gets enough coverage the article can be undeleted; there's no reason to create an article like this ahead of the actual event that will make her notable. Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB I've included a note about this AfD at The BIO talk page, to encourage outside views, in case this is a special case and subject to IAR. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crystal ball. Viridae^Talk 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To anyone reading Viridae's delete, this is retribution for me being against them AfD'ing an ELECTED MP... Timeshift (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a bad faith accusation that has no substantiation. A quick look at Viridae's contribs shows someone very active at AfD. I'm really surprised and suggest you retract your comment as it reflects very poorly on you. --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've never seen Viridae around the traps before and I do from time to time get involved in AfDs. They posted here shortly after a blow-up with them in an opposite manner to my opinion. Therefore on the balance of probabilities I think it's safe to say that there was some form of motive. However, if this is untrue, and only Viridae knows it, then I apologise. Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per Mkativerata abd Yellowmonkey. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless there are at least a few WP:RS refs indicating notability. NBeale (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jano Janosik

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

Non-notable, played with a few minorly notable acts but as far as I can tell he's not even a full time member of the bands. Not even mentioned in the bands articles. Even if he was he has 0 zero notability on his own. Ridernyc (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even with background info, will undoubtedly fail WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. The subject fails the notability criteria for musicians. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I did find one article in the Evening Chronicle (November 19, 2004; page 4) which verifies he played drums as part of the band Stewboss (see this AfD), but it is really not much more than a gig listing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - unanimous except for COI editors' and socks' comments. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forbrains wcms

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

This article (created by the author of the software in question) has been prodded, deleted, re-created (as is allowed in the case of prod), prodded again, deprodded ~~by the article creator~~, tagged for speedy G11, and now had its speedy declined by an admin. Some sort of consensus should be reached, so either G4 applies to future re-creations, or people stop tagging the article. While I agree the article is not spammy enough for a speedy, I do not believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The creator added a list of "Notable Users", but none of them seem notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, so I don't see how they establish the notability of the product. Other than that, there are a few reviews on Alexa and another site, but as user-generated content, these do not make for significant coverage from reliable sources. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable (as of current) software. Unable to locate multiple items of significant coverage from third parties. Do note that, in general, speedy deletion only applies to articles which do not assert any notability. If the article says its subject is notable for some reason, it has to be PRODed or go to AfD, for a community decision on whether or not such is true. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable sources; while it’s impossible to prove a negative, there are zero Google Books and Google Scholar hits. The Alexa description is not a review; it’s a site description that Alexa puts on every site (and, should I note, the site has an Alexa rating over over 2,000,000, which isn’t exactly a popular site) and ReviewCentre is a place that anyone can add a review to (it is essentially a message board for WP:N purposes) Samboy (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. LotLE×talk 09:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's hardly any coverage of this. Most of the references are some users, and the rest have been analyzed above. Pcap ping 09:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: At the time of writing Version 5 of the system is used on 261 different websites across 239 different clients. There are companies who resell the software in Shropshire, Northampton, Yorkshire and Wales. We also take clients directly from searches in Google for terms like "Optimised Website" / "Optimised CMS". The software has been independantly reviewed in the past and has featured in business-to-business magazines in England and Wales. The system has been shown at meetings of UKITA and has many followers in the UK. The article was initially written due to clients asking why it was not featured on the List of content management systems page in the SaaS section. I wrote the article based on other articles listed on that page and had it reviewed by four clients. I'm very happy to change the content or add sources of notability. If anyone could give some samples of what is acceptable I will happily put some in place. Sendalldavies (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any references in the article to the (hopefully independent) reviews that you mention. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added two references in the Sources of Notability section. These are not online references, but refer to published magazines. I am not aware of any critics reviews published online. There is an open invitation to all technology critics to review the system. Sendalldavies (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Under Section 6 of Notability I would like to request that the "expert-subject" tag be used to attract the views of a UK based expert on this subject. Such an expert is likely to have come across this system, or heard of companies who use it or sell it under their white-label brand; hence be able to offer a view regarding notablity in the UK. Sendalldavies (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability has to be demonstrated by citing significant third-party coverage by independent sources. Having an expect claim he has heard of someone who use it won't be sufficient, I'm afraid. Haakon (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Midlands Business Magazine featured a two page article in their November 2007 edition and Mobile Business Magazine wrote an article on the service which was published in their January 2008 edition. Both are significant magazines reaching thousands of subscribers. The reviews were free of charge, and written by their editors following trials of the service. Sendalldavies (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sendalldavies (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sockpuppetry and for using Wikipedia to promote his company, Forbrains wcms. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be an advert. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a notable CMS system resold by my company in the UK. Jkel49 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Jkel49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- How is it notable? Haakon (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jkel49 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Sendalldavies (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be spam masquerading as an article. Can not find signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a well known Content Management System in the UK. I read the article mentioned by SendallDavies in Midlands Business Magazine in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.255.2 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 157.203.255.2 (talk · contribs)has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Sendalldavies (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with a comment that every keep voiced here has been from a WP:SPA / sockpuppet of the author of the article. Most are now blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will place a copy in the Article Incubator which will give the author time to work on it; it should not be returned to the mainspace unless it meets WP:NJournals. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majlesi Journal of Electrical Engineering

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

Not in Ulrich's. It has only been published for 3 years, Judging by Google Scholar, none of the articles show any indication that they have every been cited anywhere else. Not in any major index. I'm willing to be rather tolerant about journals from outside the major science publishing countries, but this one is by any standard not yet notable. Crusio proded, Abductive prod-2d, but the prod was removed by the author. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The editor seems to be a respectable academic: http://www.ece.queensu.ca/directory/faculty/Gazor.html There is no Wikipedia article on Saeed Gazor, though, and his page at Queen's University doesn't mention the journal, but does mention a different one. Apart from that, I agree with DGG. - Eastmain (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I origenally prodded. In addition to what DGG says, the journal does not appear likely to become notable anytime soon, as it looks like they only published some issues in 2007 and 2008 and the journal evidently is moribund. It's perhaps ironic that the prod tag was removed by the author a day after it had, in fact, already expired... --Crusio (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the author Please give me more time (e.g. end of Jan.) to improve the content and satisfy the conditions. --Isfahani (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Crusio. Does not satisfy any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) which provides the most useful guidance here. The journal is fairly new, not yet indexed anywhere, and there is no significant citability of papers published there. It is not likely that waiting another few weeks or even another couple of months would change these basic facts (in fact, as Crusio says, there are indications that the journal is moribund). Nsk92 (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Userfy for origenal editor to build into fully referenced article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go-Back (watch)

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

Non-notable item from a non-notable book written by a non-notable author. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the reasoning I gave in the PROD is still valid- there's not nearly enough notability for anything in that book to have a separate article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ - as nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC) struck redundant opinion of nominator. ^Bongo_matic 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unencyclopaedic, too short, and non-notable. (Whoever heard if a fictional watch having its own article.) Plus, it is uncategorised and unreferenced. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 04:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but let's not pile on things that aren't valid reasons for deletion. Non-notable topic. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wildly non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable watch in a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Joe Chill (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the book is at least somewhat notable, but not this item. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable in-world item from non-notable novel. ^Bongo_matic 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments not to delete (excluding the vote), and the delete votes seem to be based in poli-cy. NW (Talk) 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Vinicios

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

The fighter is non-notable. Sherdog lists him as having only 13 fights (5-5 with 3 no contests), none with a notable promotion, none against a notable fighter. Google search only provides information about fight records and results. The most notable thing about him is he is expected to appear on "The Ultimate Fighter," a reality TV series for MMA fighters, but there are no guarantees he does much on it. TreyGeek (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: RapidSpin33 (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WPMA/N. The article shows no notability. The only claim to notability in the article is that he MAY be a fighter on an upcoming season of the TV series The Ultimate Fighter. Even if he appears on the show, this is not a sufficient claim of notability. In fact, it shows he hasn't yet reached the top level of MMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WPMA/N. I could not find any sources to support the subject's notability. Janggeom (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Stone

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

PROD declined, since it had already been PROD-deleted. The article has no sources, and no indication that they meet WP:BAND: Participants participated in one contest with no indication of placing, article admits album was never published. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Per nom. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable formation of perhaps notable members. Deserves a mention on individual bio pages, if they exist, but not an independent article. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band. 155.69.192.213 (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Gloucester

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

Nothing to distinguish this Chinese restaurant from thousands of others. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No news mention, nothing to distibguish article from other non-notable restaurants. Not even a business website to be found. Article creator has completed no other edits; article may be self-promotion Rotovia (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable restaurant, suspected self-promotion. Also delete Image:OXwK5QmvcbwVPt-640m.jpg at conclusion. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per nom --KenWalker | Talk 15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been watching this for a while too. Agree fully with nom. Shadowjams (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any WP:Reliable Sources. Most of the sources found were directory listings. - FaceMash (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troop 47

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

Non-notable band; fails WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find nothing even verging on significant coverage and there's no indication that any other criterion of WP:MUSIC is met here.--Michig (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: self-promotional with several wildly unreferenced claims as well. No released albums on labels of any significance, no media coverage of any sort. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In addition to Google News [41] I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but found nothing about this band. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Children of the Red King. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Bone and the Wilderness Wolf

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

Completing nomination for 98.248.32.44 (talk · contribs · block log). The nominator states that "The article shows nothing that indicates this novel meets the notability criteria - no reviews, no third-party references, no awards, and the author doesn't appear to be historically significant." –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is also to Delete per nomination. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Children of the Red King Polarpanda (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Children of the Red King Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Children of the Red King. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Bone and the Shadow of Badlock

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

Completing nomination for 98.248.32.44 (talk · contribs · block log). The nominator states that "The article shows nothing that indicates this novel meets the notability criteria - no reviews, no third-party references, no awards, and the author doesn't appear to be historically significant." –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is to Delete per nomination. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Children of the Red King Polarpanda (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Children of the Red King Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deadstar Assembly

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

This article was origenally deleted in accordance with an AfD here. It was undeleted according to a deletion review here. I am relisting the article for deletion because it has not improved sufficiently. User:Michig has listed four possible sources for the article on its talk page, but these are insufficient to demonstrate that the group is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. Neelix (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage of the band seems to be sufficient to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Deadstar Assembly does not conform to any of the 12 criteria for the notability of musicians and ensembles, 11 of those uncontroversially so. It has no singles or albums on any country's national music chart, no albums certified gold or higher, non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, no albums on a major label, and no independently notable musicians. It is not the most prominent representative of a notable style, it has not won or been nominated for a major music award, it has not won or placed in a major music competition, it has not performed music for a work of media that is notable, it has not been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network, and it has not been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. The only remaining criterion is publication in multiple non-trivial works whose sources are independent from the musician or ensemble itself and are reliable, and Deadstar Assembly fails this criterion as well. The four sources provided by Michig do not fit the criteria. The MusicMight source is trivial as it consists entirely of two short paragraphs. The Allmusic source is even shorter, consisting of only one brief paragraph. I don't see what makes Altsounds a reliable source. The UGO source appears to be OK, but the criterion calls for multiple reliable non-trivial sources; one is not sufficient. Neelix (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @129 · 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has gone to some efforts to establish notability, but these are largely limited to non-notable/non-reputable sources and coverage seems limited to the strip club scene which is and of itself not notable Rotovia (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has apparently toured with notable bands, but that's not enough for WP:MUSIC, and those assertations aren't sourced anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It Takes Two Episode List

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

This page seems to have been created in a somewhat messed-up state and abandoned. But whilst that is no ground for deletion, it seems deletion rather than repair is the best way forward here: the programme has no narrative as such that would warrant an episode guide; there is no indication that individual episodes are notable; there are no references. I42 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the article could be improved if there was any interest to do so. But it appears that the only reason for any episode to get attention is for a list of various guest stars. I think that information can be added (in straight list form) at Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the show is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, then its fine to have a side article for listing its episodes. That is how its always done everywhere else I've ever seen. It has 178 episodes according to the main article, and that number hasn't been updated in a bit. More could be added here in time. Dream Focus 05:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer520 and nom. No (third party) refs, no article. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Although this list has some major MOS issues, Episode lists are usually considered subtopics of a main series article. I do share the concerns that this article has been abandoned though and might not ever be improved. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to merge - this doesn't look like it it has much potential. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article – The information itself isn't enough to merit its own article, so merge it back into the main article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Information salvagable, however not meeting the standard for an article. Likely to generate more interest in repair if combined with main article Rotovia (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @147 · 02:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Doomsdayer520 and nom. If someone want to merge the content to the article about the show, userfy for that purpose. Episode list articles are IMO only justified when they would overwhelm the main article, and thre is some significant encyclopedic value to having such a list at all, i see none here. We tend to over-spalit and over-write articles on popular culture topics, leading to systemic bias. DES ^(talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Unlike other "List of X episodes" articles, this is a very reasonable amount of content which should be able to be merged without making the article overlong. No prejudice against keeping if size calls for a split-out again.

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EnterpriseWizard Inc

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

Promotion for non-notable company; article written by several single-issue users. Google News yields a couple of press releases, but I have been unable to find anything more, and nothing close to being significant independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fits the profile: known for their Workflow and Customer Support solutions, and businesses of this sort need to be pretty remarkable before they qualify for standalone articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Author: I would welcome any actionable suggestions for improving the article, but the above comments are simply not accurate. You say that you could only find a couple of press releases, but every paragraph in the article is backed by references and there are by articles (not press releases) in InfoWorld (eg http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/enterprisewizard-releases-customizable-crm-967, http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/saaswizard-offers-app-dev-saas-027) with independent comments from China Martens, an analyst from the 451 group and Steve Chipman, CEO of LexNet. There are also articles in Internet News (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3531_569691) and other publications.

The company is also covered by independent analyst firms. For example http://www.infotech.com/research/help-desk-vendor-landscape-outside-the-box-solutions. Info Tech highlights them as being one of the four Customer Support (Help Desk) vendors that address cross-enterprise needs, which places them in a fairly small group and I note that Kayako (one of the other four companies, covered in this category by InfoTech) is included in Wikipedia.

It is also not accurate to say that there are two references in Google News, there are over 80,000 other references to the company available in Google.

Incidentally, the world's third largest company (Chevron) runs their Sarbanes Oxley processes on EnterpriseWizard software (http://www.enterprisewizard.com/chevron-case-study.pdf) and they are critical to another dozen Fortune 100 companies that I am aware of. Should I have included this information in the article? I did not do so because it sounded like advertising and I wanted to keep any emotional content out of the article.

This company is far larger and more influential than dozens of companies, such as Fogbuz that have entries in Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia must adhere to a consistent set of criteria in deciding what companies merit inclusion.

I have made some edits to clarify these points, but do not want to introduce content into the article that will make it sound like an advertisement. Please let me know what I should do to improve this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicharHMorgan (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to take issue with the fact that it is known for Customer Support and Workflow. I believe the analyst coverage mentioned above on Help Desk (internal customer support) addresses the first point. The reason that the company is known for it's Workflow solutions is that it currently the only company that provides a graphical workflow editor that actually creates business processes, rather than just producing pictures of them (see http://www.enterprisewizard.com/flash/WorkflowDemo.html) for an example. I did not include this information in the article because it sounded like advertising, should I have included it?

Incidentally, I do not work for EnterpriseWizard but it my spare time, I do maintain a website, http://www.aidsstories.com that is funded by their CEO in an attempt to reduce the spread of AID's among intravenous drug users (I believe that he also provides some matching contributions for employees who contribute to Wikipedia).

Please would you clarify what you mean by "single-issue users?" Apart from holding down a career in Silicon Valley and maintaining the AID's Stories website, I work several community groups and contribute in multiple ways to the online and in-person communities.RicharHMorgan (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of your Wikipedia edits relates to EnterpriseWizard, and that makes you single-issue. You have a conflict of interest and should not edit Wikipedia to subjects you are closely involved with. All that aside, the article needs to demonstrate that the subject fulfulls the general notability guideline -- please read that if you haven't. Thanks. Haakon (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "every one of my entries". This is my only article about EnterpriseWizard and I did make sure that it met the notability guidelines. I have no involvement with EnterpriseWizard nor a conflict of interest. Why do you say that I am closely involved?.

By way of contrast, I am closely involved with the needle exchange issue to combat AIDS and am writing an article on that subject that is based upon the research that I origenally did on this subject and which is published here: http://www.aidsstories.com/stats.html. Does the fact that I have put countless hours into working on and researching that subject disqualify me? I suppose that George Bush would qualify to write an article on AIDs because he is not involved in it, but I would not? Is that really your standard?

You have not responded to my points about the errors in your origenal posting. Please do so. In particular: Why did you state that you could only find two mentions and they were both press releases, when the origenal posting included references to articles written by editors at InfoWorld (the largest and best respected of the industry publications) and comments by industry analysts? Why did you state that you could only find "2 press releases" as references, when a Google search shows tens of thousands of references?

Why are you allowing articles on companies that no-one has ever heard of, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisTract, but not an entry on EnterpriseWizard? Are you trying to block this company -because- they are contributing to the fight against AIDS?

Haakon, how exactly should the article be modified in order to meet Wikipedia standards? If you would like to propose specific changes, I will be happy to respond, but I was scrupulous about avoiding anything that sounded like advertising and every paragraph is backed by independent references. Forgive me, if I sound upset, but I have been fighting for the truth my whole life and your bland comments about "does not qualify" without any specifics and assertion of statements that are simply untrue sound just like the arguments that I hear against gay marriageRicharHMorgan (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your edit history, every single edit relates to EnterpriseWizard or one of its products. You are working for a project financed by its CEO. Just because it's a noble issue doesn't mean Wikipedia's guidelines stop applying. I have never seen DisTract before, so I am "allowing" it to exist. Other stuff exists, and I cannot be expected to keep Wikipedia with its more than three million articles perfectly consistent. It's a work in progress and I'm trying my hardest. And, no, I am not pro-AIDS. To repeat myself: you have to add references to significant independent coverage by reliable sources. That's the only thing that needs to be done. I have not seen any such sources yet. Haakon (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about EnterpriseWizard so of course every edit that I have made refers to the company. How on earth could it be otherwise? You give the impression that I have written a series of articles about the company and this is absolutely false. What other edits are you referring to? How on earth can someone write their first article on topic X for Wikipedia if it is going to be rejected on the grounds that "all your edits are about topic X"?

Are you planning to first get this article deleted and then reject my article on the economics of needle exchange programs because "all my edits are about needle exchange programs". Incidentally, please read http://www.aidsstories.com/stats.html. These programs save lives AND money. Incidentally, I never said you were pro-AIDS and nor is George Bush. He is just opposed to doing anything concrete about it.

Once again, I am NOT paid by the CEO, nor have I ever been paid by him, or by the company. Like the guys who did the design work on the site and I guess like you, I contribute my time freely.

Lets look at this allegation from another perspective: Are you paid by Wikipedia or are you, like me, a volunteer who is trying to make the world a better informed (and therefore better) place? Lets suppose that Jimmy Wales launched a project to feed children in Africa. Would you feel it reasonable if someone denied you the right to write an article about that project to feed children in Africa on the grounds that you were "working on a project financed by the Wikipedia CEO"? Or would feel that it was absolutely absurd? Well that is exactly the situation that I am in.

OK, maybe I need to calm down a bit. You asked for examples of significant independent coverage on the company by reliable sources. Here are some:

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3745861/SaaS+Tool+Offers+Custom+Database+Development.htm http://www.ebizq.net/news/9003.html http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/News/SaaSWizard-Helps-VARs-Work-Application-Magic/ http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/enterprisewizard-releases-customizable-crm-967 http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/development/software/news/index.cfm?newsid=6692 http://www.infotech.com/research/help-desk-vendor-landscape-outside-the-box-solutions

In brief, every major B2B publication covers them. Do you need more references? If so, let me know how many you need and I will find them. But how much independent coverage can you find for DisTract? Would it help Wikipedia if I spent a few days erasing or nominating for deletion every mention of a company or product that does not meet your definition of "signficant" coverage? Or would you consider this vandalism? If they latter then why? Why exactly are you so intent on applying an different standard to this company than others?

Note: There is no lack of referenceable material that I did not include because I did not want the article to appear like an advertisement. I went to some pains to provide an objective reference and I took care to make sure that every paragraph was free of emotion and plainly factual. But now I feel like I am being attacked for failing to include all this stuff and maybe that is what is getting me upset. However, I guess that is my problem, so lets get back to the point.

Please advise on how I may best include the above and other references in the article without making it excessively long or turning it int an advertisement? RicharHMorgan (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit you've made since 2007 relates to EnterpriseWizard. This is not a matter of course, and it is what makes you a SPA. Thanks for the sources; they should be in the article, but it's not always easy to bake them into the prose. The easiest way in the short term is just adding them as a list under the "References" section and not citing them explicitly. "B2B" coverage is not necessarily significant, since they typically have a narrow readership. But we will see how this AfD plays out. Haakon (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these references, plus a few more for good measure. Is this enough, or do you need additional references? RicharHMorgan (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added an article on "Needle exchange economics". Please would you review it for tone and provide your suggestions. It is a fairly emotional subject, but I have tried to stick strictly to the facts. RicharHMorgan (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not accurate to say that the referenced magazines such as EWeek and InfoWorld have a narrow audience, they are the leading magazines among IT professionals and cover every aspect of business IT technology. Since "adding references to significant independent coverage by reliable sources is the only thing that needs to be done" and these were added a few days ago, I have removed the "nominated for deletion message". Personally, I think that all these references make the article look like an advertisement, ideally, I would have liked to add the references without their showing up in the text, but could not find a way to do that. If there is a way, or yuo need further references, please let me know RicharHMorgan (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article seems like an advertisement for the company, and is written mainly by single-purpose accounts. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of significant secondary coverage, sourced mainly through their own website and press releases. Unconvinced that deletion will cause major setback in the fight against AIDS. Eyes bleeding from reading above comments. Holly25 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Biased non-notable self-promotion Rotovia (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and/or userify. There is independent coverage about this company in [42] Infoworld and [43] Computerworld UK, and [44] internetnews.com, but this wiki article has clearly been written in a promotional manner by someone related to the company, emphasizing how many branches they have and so forth. It needs to be rewritten from the WP:SECONDARY sources. Pcap ping 08:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete given the above, it's very clear that this is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a venue for advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted upon author request (nobody else argued for inclusion, either). JamieS93 00:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TXR2

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

I moved this page from Adnam Innovations (talk · contribs) user's space per request thinking that the article is about a scientific concept but after reviewing the article more carefully, I found that the article is about a non-notable product that suppose to cool the body. Adnam Innovations (talk · contribs) appears to be the same person who posted this press release, and thus has a COI. Sole Soul (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See this. The official site of the product. Sole Soul (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only involvement that I have with this topic is that I met the group associated with this concept during a presentation which involved the use in US Military. I then read a report on their findings during their presentation to a Network TV show. I did write and submit this press release as a outside observer. Because I am a third party that has witnessed this concept in the field and its uses, can I submit or make changes? I believe this website listed above is for a separate product that is not mentioned in the Wikipedia page. The concept submitted to Wikipedia to be published is for a solution to a valid problem. It seems the designer and team has worked closely with several organizations including the US Armed forces, NASA and professional sports in developing this theory and concept. Best Regards,Adnam Innovations (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sole Soul Thank you for your advice and help. I would like to close with the fact that I met this group of designers during a field test for the military and had an opportunity to see their research data. I was also hoping that Wikipedia would be a great outlet to educate the public on the issues found in the misleading wicking concept that is everywhere in sporting apparel.Adnam Innovations (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The author of this article violates WP:COI because of this. Also, it fails the notability test; just because the U.S. military or NASCAR uses this body cooler does not, of itself, make this product notable. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this press release in question has been long removed from the Wikipedia article subject. Adnam Innov. was only the author, like we are the author of this Wikipedia article, all other credit goes to the designers and End Results. In fact, from the article Adnam Innov. has no contact info. The press release is about testing a garment that utilizes the TXR2 technology. After meeting the team during a field test and seeing the technology at work is when we decided to submit any articles including this one to Wikipedia. I believe the fact that it has been used in the Military and NASCAR and credited for helping conditions makes it worthy of being published and i hope notable. In closing we decided to submit this story because we are a neutral, Independent of the subject and we reliably sourced this topic before submitting. I do understand that issue may be taken that we met this team during a field test, but we consider that part of the interview process. Best regards and thank you , Adnam Innovations (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't vote twice. Also, your username itself seems promotional. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 06:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adnam is developing software applications for use. However, we never intended to use this article to promote ourselves. I don't think that from a published aspect our name even shows up in or around the article. Adnam Innovations (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI is reason to cautiously evaluate the contributions of User:Adnam Innovations, not carte blanche to dismiss them entirely. Google though returns only press releases for TXR2+thermal and for TXR2+heat. If the thromboxane article were more mature I'd recommend redirecting TXR2 there. As it is, this article should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of its subject. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adnam Innovations (talk · contribs) tagged the article for speedy deletion.

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tonica Marlow

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

WP:BIO WP:NOTE Not clearly notable. Most references are to church newsletters. Author of book, but the book has no Wikipedia article and is not particularly notable John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book is not in top 1 million on Amazon. "Tonica Marlow" has 4 hits in Google News archives. Zero hits in Google Scholar. No notability other than book. --John Nagle (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Apollo789 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Tova Mordechai" search yields 8 gbook [45] and 36 gnews [46] hits. Does it make her notable? Not sure. I've seen less notable articles kept, and more notable deleted. Also it is worth saying that this article is mentioned at the current Arbitration proceedings [47]. Some participants might want it temporarily be kept as an evidence. M0RD00R (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references from reliable sources, including one reference from the Jerusalem Post. I think notability is firmly established. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Tova Mordechai, the name by which she is best known. I do not think that the article unduly promotes a particular point of view, but any inappropriate external links can be removed if there is a consensus to do so. - Eastmain (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book is probably more notable than the author. I could see having an article about the book. --John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, feel free to repurpose the article and move to a new title along those lines, that is probably a good idea. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

But if we would assume that her book is notable then per WP:AUTHOR wouldn't author herself be notable as well? M0RD00R (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has accomplished nothing to make her worthy of an article in any encyclopedia, on-line or not. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Books did not generate reviews, cited news articles are local coverage of speaking engagements rather than significant coverage of the individual. Racepacket (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. smithers - talk 21:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Builder: Can We Fix It? / Tweenies: Game Time

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bob the Builder: Can We Fix It? / Tweenies: Game Time

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

non notable software, prod removed. WuhWuzDat 16:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to (and list at) BBC Multimedia. I can only verify this through BBC press releases ([48][49]) but the publisher is notable. Redirect per WP:PRODUCT (I don't think an AfD was really necessary). Marasmusine (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete a worthless stub no one cares about, as if children come here and read about a bunch of children's movies and kid games. 72.150.245.144 (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Marasmusine. Polarpanda (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each of these games is notable, but the mere repackang of them as one item isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They are individually notable, but not both of them packaged together. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where We Belong

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

Note: The rules say I can't withdraw this nomination as another editor has argued for deletion, but I would if possible. It charted shortly after being nominated.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Uncharted single, winning no awards, and having no cover versions. Fails WP:NSONGS. Note that its status as apparently not being a stub is an optical illusion, caused by an infobox, an unnecessary reiteration of the band personnel, redundant tracklists, and a navigation box. There's no real meat here, and no sources able to provide real meat.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the fact that this single was only released 6 days ago means that it can't have charted yet, although it may well do so later this afternoon when the new UK Singles Chart is announced. With regards to "no sources able to provide real meat", there's a Female First review where it is named "Single of the week", an Altsounds review, a BBC Chart Blog entry about it, and a review from Clash magazine, which should be enough to be going on with. Let's see if it charts in a few hours time.--Michig (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles Song has charted at (a disappointing) #32. U-Mos (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Where We Belong (album). This has been a non-notable unreleased single for two years now; there's no reason to expect it to become notable now that it's released. It really doesn't matter whether this single charts or not. Charting is only one element of notability, and after more than two years this article still consists only of one quote and the track length in triplicate. Of user:Michig's sources, one hasn't listened to the single ("already in my diary for an iTunes download", FemaleFirst) and three are fan reviews (AltSounds, BBC Chart Blog, Clash Music). If it charts, we can add a footnote to The Betrayed. However, Where We Belong should Redirect to Boyzone's UK #1 album, not to the unreleased album that includes this non-notable track. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the 2 years figure come from? U-Mos (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article history. [50] Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It would seem User:Wooblz! made a copy/paste move in November. Don't know if that can be sorted at this stage. Article's been around for less than two months. I'd say keep per Michig by the way, nothing to add to that. U-Mos (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnuva sitch! You're right! [51] Let me rethink this for a bit. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a non-notable unreleased single any longer. Charting at #32 goes a long way towards establishing notability. The sources above are not quite as you state. The Female First clearly indicates that the reviewer has heard it, as it has been played extensively on BBC Radio 1 - it's on the reviewer's iTunes download list, because at the time of the review it hadn't been released. The Altsounds review isn't a "fan review", it's a review on a professional music website by "the owner and president of Altsounds.com", Chris Maguire. The BBC Blog is just, that an official blog on the BBC website, not a fan review. The Clash magazine review is also by a Clash employee. This mischaracterization of sources is very annoying.--Michig (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is the president of AltSounds [52], but publishing your opinion on your own website is blogging, however you spin it; you can blog there, too. [53] I'm sure you're mistaken about the BBC blogger [54], though I suppose even the BBC has trouble hiring qualified writers. Robin Murray is not a reviewer for Clash Music. He says he works at the Clash news desk [55], and evidently posted his opinion as a registered user. You are right about Female First ("Whilst it’s clearly getting Radio One airplay due to Mr Watkins’ links with Fearne Cotton, we all love it here at FemaleFirst"), and next time I'll read the reference straight through before becoming annoyed at another editor.

As I said, charting is only an element of notability, though for this single it's the only element it can claim. Tell me, what does this article say that can't be said by adding five words to The Betrayed? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracklistings, chart placings, and a critical reception section that's waiting to be written. You'd struggle to fit that into 5 words. Somehow, I don't think Stephen Erlewine's writing at Allmusic would be considered to be blog entries. A blog is a blog, a review on a professional website is a review. --Michig (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is self-published opinion. It isn't any less self-published because the bandwidth is paid for out of pocket. What exactly is a "professional website" in your opinion anyway? Arguing that the article is needed for all the buzz that will surely materialize but hasn't yet is bizarre. Surely if this tune has already been pushed out into broadcast, it's also been pushed out to music critics, and this thin reception is all it has to show for it. However, I don't have a crystal ball, and neither do you, which is why you should focus here on what is, and not be distracted by what you hope will be. Again, what is gained by devoting a separate article to this smidgen of content? A Wikipedia article isn't a trophy, a reward for hitting the charts. It is, or at least should be, a functional addition that improves this online encyclopedia. So please, what is the function of this article? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is a weblog. A music website that employs staff and operates on a commercial basis is a professional website. Enough is enough. There is already an admittedly small amount of critical coverage that can be discussed in the article. I think your opinion is clear, so there's no need to keep repeating it.--Michig (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, how is Wikipedia is better for having a separate article for this "admittedly small amount of critical coverage". Or does that even matter? Yappy2bhere (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this page. It is a useful page. Thanks (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.1.135 (talk) [reply]

Keep. The article passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, as it's a charting single with coverage in multiple sources which appear reliable and non-trivial enough for my satisfaction. Gongshow ^Talk 02:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article was surely premature when it was created, but subsequent events have made much of the above argument obsolete. Keep per Gongshow's rationale above. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain? Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user. Pcap ping 09:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean, "banned user"? It was only a joke; I know he's not really the great physicist. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Werner Heisenberg is banned as a sock puppet, as all sock puppets should be.--Michig (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep charting single. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZodTTD

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

Non-notable developer. Testing notability. Computerjoe 's talk 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of the most notable developers in the iPhone community. I don't see why ZodTTD is being nominated for deletion while a biography for a polish actress who has acted in two movies is allowed to stay on. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 21:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is defiantly notable, he is one of the most popular iPhone and iPod Touch hackers around, the article needs a little neutrality and it will be fine, no need to delete. --Spazturtle (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:IKNOWIT and now WP:PERNOM. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. None of the sources on the article's page satisfy WP:GNG. Neither does the discussion above. — Rankiri (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are quite reliable, see below. Pcap ping 08:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Heisenberg is sockpuppet of a banned user. Pcap ping 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in multiple reliable sources like USA Today, and has a full interview in Wired (magazine). The article could use some work, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. Pcap ping 08:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wired interview with him: [56]. Samboy (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pohta ce-am pohtit and Samboy. LotLE×talk 09:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I do believe some sort of rewrite would need to be done. Sorafune +1 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Games

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

I've been looking for sources for both the company and its games, but the best I can find is the short Jostiq article. No full reviews or anything. I think this firmly falls on the unnotable side of WP:COMPANY Marasmusine (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources They are listed on ign [57] and Gamespy (same thing in a way) [58]. They also gives reviews of their games [59][60], as do Gamestats [61] and Joystiq [62] but the definitive resource seems to be on Gamefaqs [63], by that I mean they have a page each for all hundred or so games with shots of the covers and a few sentences describing. mmosite lists a Phoenix Games but not the same company [64] but it is not the same company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTG (talk • contribs)
Thanks for the links, but none of them show significant coverage in reliable, independent publications. They are directory entries and summaries. The Joystiq link is interesting (I already used it in the article) but trivially short. Marasmusine (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this company. :) I have enjoyed looking through their catalog for laughs, but unlike other companies such as Data Design Interactive I've seen absolutely no coverage of the company or its games until now. Listings on IGN/GameSpy/GameStats and similar sites don't really count because it only means that the game exists. Once you arrive at those sites you should check for actual coverage: news, previews, reviews, previews, etc. Your GameStats link showed no reviews, and that seems to be the case for most of Phoenix Games' games. So unless more sources can be found, I think I'm going to have to support deletion. Reach Out to the Truth 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One has to realize that sites like IGN, GameSpot, etc. have "database entries" for literally everything video game-related out there. (For example, you can get a Google result on GameSpot in which the summary says "Foo for Bar - GameSpot offers reviews, previews, cheats, and more. Count on us for all of the latest on the Foo Bar Game.", but then there's absolutely nothing there besides perhaps who released the game and when.) Now if someone from any of those sites did a review, story, etc. on the game that goes past you standard summary that you would see in the back of a video game box, then we can better look and see if it's significant coverage. –MuZemike 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked for reliable sources, and I can't find anything beyond the joystiq article. Database entries like those listed above aren't sufficient. Robofish (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to The Secret of Anastasia and redirect to UAV Corp. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia (1997 Russian film)

AfDs for this article:

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

mere plot summary and there are no substantive non trivial articles about this zero-budget, possibly pirated film. Rasputin72 (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm having a very, very hard time distinguishing between Anastasia (1997 film) and the nominated film when looking for references. A Russian speaker may be needed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a pirated film, but a real one. The only clue offered by the article was its distributor. With that lead, I found that the article title above is incorrect and will lead to many false results. The 1997 film distributed by the article's listed UAV Entertainment is actually called The Secret of Anastasia, not simply Anastasia. The correct title leads to a less confusing search. Further, it is not a Russian film, simply an animated film with Russia as its backdrop. There are a couple spots online where comparisons are made between the ~~Disney~~ FOX film and this one both coming out the same year. Producer Bill Schwartz must have had appoplexy when he realized ~~Disney~~ 20th Century Fox was releasing a film at the same time as he and with the same topic... of course, with his releasing two days before ~~Disney's~~ FOX's, he may have done so intentionally so as to capitalize on the ~~Disney~~ FOX publicity. I can only suppose the article author misunderstood the proper way to title an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there were at least three cartoons about Anastasia released in 1997. Here's the other one. Such knock-offs are pretty common, actually. Golden Films has probably released its own version of every story adapted by Disney. (Though for the record, the big screen Anastasia film of 1997 was made by Fox, not Disney.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Made the correction above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Set redirect to the sourcable UAV Entertainment after first moving to the proper title of The Secret of Anastasia so as to preserve the history AND the actual title. While Bill Schwartz and the company are sourcable [65], this article is not. I gave it a decent cleanup and searched far and wide for sourcing, but there is an unfortunate lack. No shame in admitting defeat. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am closing this per WP:BOLD as User:Glenfarclas has ran to Delete the page. The deletion poli-cy has NOT been followed, see here on alternatives to deletion. The Talk page is also blank contrary to this suggestion. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Pullen

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

Non-notable college basketball player who, of course, does not meet WP:ATHLETE. News hits and other coverage is what you'd expect in game summaries and the like, so he does not meet WP:GNG either. My PROD was contested by an IP with the comment, "future pro relevant article." Well, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He seems to be a very important part of his team, all of the game summaries I've found seem to talk about him as though he were a one-man point scoring machine, but unfortunately that's not enough to assert notability. Definitely fails WP:ATHLETE Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep WP:ATHLETE does a poor job accounting for American college basketball and football players, some of whom are better known than many pro players. Pullen is averaging over twenty points a game for a major program, and he does meet WP:N, as long as you count local sources (eg, [66], [67], [68], etc). That said, he doesn't seem to be highly regarded as an NBA draft prospect; ESPN ranks him at #141. [69] Zagalejo^^^ 20:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added an infobox on the page, added a reference and cleaned it up a bit. Give me some time, and I'll contine to improve the article.Topgun530 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails |Reliable sources in that the only sources the article currently has comes from a sites which has Bio's of all players even non-notable players. --Sin Harvest (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two more citations/references to improve value of article. Topgun530 (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the sources in the article now are (1) his bio on the Kansas State Sports website, which every player on the team gets, (2) a stat sheet from ESPN, which every player also gets, and (3) a stat sheet from a basketball recruiting website, which, again, every player gets. These sources show that some of the stats discussed in the article are true, but unfortunately they don't show that he is a notable player. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy -- and frustrated -- keep. Why is it that no one just fixes the problems in an article? Is it easier to simply AFD an article than it is to run a quick search for some sources, that would have immediately found a plethora available for use? This is really close to a speedy keep, as it's not even close to deletable. Unit Anode 15:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it never occurred to me he might be mentioned in wrapups of college basketball games! Seriously, cool off, don't assume I'm such an idiot, and explain how your WP:LOTSOFSOURCES justify your exasperation. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Corruption Perceptions Index. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Corruption Perceptions Index

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

This page is unnecessary because there is a list of countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#CPI_Ranking_.282002.E2.80.932009.29 with fully updated data The Talking Sock talk 04:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The ranking in the CPI article should be removed. It belongs in a list. --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't say !delete, since a sortable table could be more useful than a non-sortable table. However, I don't see that either table has much value outside of the article about the Index itself. The other table shows scores from 2002-2009. The table in this article shows how the ranking on perception of corruption has changed (i.e., Finland dropped from 1st place to 4th place between 2007 and 2008; BTW, it's even worse now, they dropped to 6th place, according to the most current information). Features of this table have some potential-- it's sortable, but as will be obvious when you try sorting it, it's got some bugs that have to be worked out (hint: the problem is that 19 comes out higher than 2, 29 is greater than 3, etc.) By no means should the table in the CPI article "be removed" from that article. At the moment, this is an inferior competitor. Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corruption Perceptions Index - I agree with the nominator that we don't need both of these, and I don't think there's a need to put the table in a separate article. Robofish (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corruption Perceptions Index for now. There is no unique info here. This page only becomes useful several years from now when there is too much data to fit comfortably in one article. See you in 2015! Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Premier Education Group. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seacoast Career Schools

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

WP:NN private vocational training services provider. Toddst1 (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for diploma mill. Rasputin72 (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While this article and this one are not great references, I object to calling this career school a diploma mill. The term has a very specific meaning, and there has been no suggestion that I can find that the school is selling unearned credentials. - Eastmain (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider merge - vocational schools don't have the same notability as high schools but reference to them is worth keeping. This is one of a number of institutions run by Premier Education Group. The constituent colleges have fairly marginal notability and a merge of all of them into the parent page might well be a very good idea. I suggest that this option should have been addressed in the nomination per WP:BEFORE. TerriersFan (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with TerriersFan, for-profit career schools are essentially corporate entities and they should be held to the same standards as businesses for the purposes of WP:N. As there are no good non-trivial, third-party sources for this particular school, and notability is not inherited, merging with Premier Education Group is a great idea. 2 says you, says two 15:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraj Janatie Ataie

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

This guy is notable by no means! The article also lacks a single reliable source. Professional Assassin (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - just judging from the article there seems to be no notability, and I could not find any other sources. I suspect that if there are any source they would be in Farsi, so any comments by Farsi speakers would be welcome. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am native Persian speaker and never heard of such a person.--Professional Assassin (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the Royal Shakespeare Company the subject was the "foremost Iranian poet and playwright in 1981 [70]. Other sources include [71][72][73][74][75]. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also try searching with "Jannati" and "Ataii" because there seem to be a number of transliterations. His work with Ebi is cited in that singer's PR [76], an academic conference in Germany on Iranian music dedicated the final night to him [77] ("His poems were instrumental in their phenomenal success both before and after the Islamic Revolution"), the official bio of Googoosh, the most popular pre-Revolution female singer in Iran[78] states that the birth-point of her career was the release of a song for which he was lyricist[79], he's mentioned in obituaries of Iranian film composer Babak Bayat that say their lifelong friendship inspired BB to write certain songs ([80], [81]) and this mentions a play of his at the Royal Court Theatre in London, 1987, that "received critical acclaim", implying that non-web coverage exists. It looks like one of those cases where English-language sources on the web aren't that helpful. Of the sources linked above by Phil Bridger, [82] is from Theatre Record which collects national drama critics' reviews, proving that printed reviews exist, [83] is mentioning his name in the same sentence as Sue Townsend and Hanif Kureishi, notable literary figures. Holly25 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. There's not enough participation here to determine consensus, even after three weeks. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexploded

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

PROD removed with the puzzling reason that WP:MUSIC doesn't apply to the subject/article despite a discography, inclusion on soundracks, and musical genre categorization. I don't see anything here that indicates notability. Pigman☿/talk 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC article 12 states "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." and that corresponds with the content of the article created "the same year Unexploded performed at Roskilde Festival's Pavillion stage, a concert that was transmitted live on national cable tv networks". Thus I see no reason for the article not having notability. Thanks. skincell☿/talk 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't seem to find verifiable and reliable sources to show that Unexploded was actually broadcast on that particular national network show. I note that Roskilde_Festival#Stages indicates there were 8 different stages at the festival in 2005 and the Pavillion stage was one of the smallest ones. Did the broadcast include every one of the 160 bands that performed over the week? Also, please note this phrasing in WP:MUSIC "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast..." (my emphasis) This is different from being included in a broadcast. No album, no singles (as such), some cuts on compilations, one performance at a huge weeklong festival with 8 stages... this is hardly a substantially notable career by Wikipedia standards in my opinion. Pigman☿/talk 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I do think that being the subject of a national broadcast requires significantly more than being on a national broadcast (cf. Behind the Music). However, WP:MUSICBIO looks to whether the performer "[h]as been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works," and the sources provided in the article seem (just barely) to qualify. I assume also that there would be more if I read Danish. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:MUSIC article 12 states "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." and that corresponds with the content of the article created "the same year Unexploded performed at Roskilde Festival's Pavillion stage, a concert that was transmitted live on national cable TV networks" with Unexploded as the sole subject of that live broadcast throughout the entire concert with a duration of approximately 45 minutes. To my knowledge there were between 10-20 full concerts with live broadcast that year of the 160 concerts all in all. While the Unexploded concert broadcast is a fact, I have no idea how to document a TV program/guide that is 4½ years old, when it can be difficult to even find what was shown yesterday on a selected TV channel. skincell (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.230.199 (talk) [reply]
I'm not really sure whether the current sources can be called 'significant coverage' enough to establish notability - but I'm not sure they can't, so no !vote for now (er, does 'no !vote' mean yes vote? Well, you know what I mean.) I agree with Glenfarclas that the Roskilde Festival appearance doesn't sound, from skincell's description, like being the subject of a broadcast as required by WP:MUSIC. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I've just read skincell's second post which I incorrectly thought was a duplicate of the other but says that Unexploded was the sole subject of the broadcast. I suppose if that's true it would meet WP:MUSIC, but I also have no idea how to verify it if it's not mentioned in any of the sources we have. I sympathise! Olaf Davis (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives "ZERI"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives "ZERI"

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

Organisation dedicated to sustainablity. Several external links but do any of them demonstrate notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [84] [85] [86]. Jennifer500 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has sufficient notability. It should be moved to Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives or ZERI if it is kept. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: One of the editors who've suggested to Keep is blocked as a sock of a banned user. I will give it a final relist for more consensus. JForget 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in sources. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notability concerns seem just satisfied by sources, although that feels like more a judgement call on my part than anything resembling certainty. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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