Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 10

< 9 March	11 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFL New York/Hartford

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Until firm details are announced, pages for individual teams of a proposed league do not seem to be viable. The only information already appears in the United Football League (2008) page and all seems to be sourced from the league website. This raises notability concerns in addition to those of speculation. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources from the teams from ESPN, the league has a tv deal with Versus, there other articles for the teams [1]. There seems to be enough coverage out there to show that these are the four teams that will take to the field, if the league does play. If the league never plays a down, the articles can be merged into the main league article. Patken4 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football's list of football related deletions.

Patken4 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Them playing this season has been reported numerous times.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Patken4. I have added some other sources (namely a CBS article mentioning the coaches of all these teams) to the main UFL article which can be used here.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the guys above. If you see a problem with the article just improve them, don't delete them. And you only marked 3 of the 4 UFL team article why's this. What's the point of having 1 of them if you're not going to have all of them. Standleylake40 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided on the articles and those presented above help to allay any crystalballing and notability concerns. It seems more likely that the league will go ahead than not and, like Patken said, if the league never does get off the ground these articles can be merged later. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a consensus here to Keep, can we get this confirmed by an admin?J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Gleiberman

A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good (at least that's what the discussion forums used as refs say). Non-notable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless completely rewritten. With 20 years as a film critic for a major publication, Gleiberman is notable enough for an article and should have one. However, the present article is complete garbage, focusing solely on embarassing stuff from his schoolboy days (is that even true?) and his questionable review of Epic Movie. Yes, he should have an article but this is not it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to make it easier to write a solid article. With the section about the Scary Movie review removed, the article still has enough material to live on. The only problem is that it needs some time to be referenced. (all the current refs are in the then removed section) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Really? I thought his claim to fame was being one of the two primary film critics for one of the most widely distributed general-audience entertainment magazines in the United States for nearly two decades. On that note, I'm kinda surprised that Lisa Schwarzbaum is red-linked. Poechalkdust (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but rewrite, edit down to basics as a prerequiste if necessary, but clearly a notable figure.Vartanza (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a primary critic for EW. With regard to the two delete/userfy !votes above, see WP:NOEFFORT - AfD is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. —97198 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should be an easy keep, given his long term status as a movie critic for Entertainment Weekly. Can't say it better than Vartanza and 97198. Lisa Schwarzbaum should have an article too. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yeah I agree that its a totally easy call for keeping Garynine (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry but "A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good," has to be about the worse rationale for nomination I've ever read, regardless of what one might have read in a ref. Owen Glieberman is a nationally read, very well known film critic. Keep per WP:SNOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpiritWorld

Article appears to be an attempt at a novel synthesis of various strains of New Age beliefs, borrowing from indigenous belief systems from all over the world. In my opinion the article is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy pertaining to no original research WP:OR and that both its style and tone are unencyclopedic. The article also contains a number of images that are claimed to be "free for use" by the editor that submitted them, but in checking the website that is purportedly their source, the National Library of New Zealand digital collection[2] I discovered that in fact *none* of the images are to be used without adhering to certain terms and conditions prior to using them.[3] Deconstructhis (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. The non-free images should be discussed at IfD rather than here, and criticism of the article's style and tone is not grounds for deletion. (If you don't like the style and tone of an article, improve it.) However, I believe the WP:OR argument will be fatal to the article in its current form.

"SpiritWorld" is a very plausible search term, and therefore it should not be a redlink. Therefore this article should be a redirect or disambiguation page.

On balance I feel any relevant content should be merged to the various cultural and religious articles involved, and this should become a disambiguation page leading to those articles.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip on the complaints regarding the images, I'll keep that in mind for next time, although if you examine the talk page of the article you'll discover why I think that issue should be dealt with ASAP. As far as I can tell, "SpiritWorld", the title of the article, is a self coined neologism and thus shouldn't appear in an article in the encyclopedia at all. In terms of your assessment of "style and tone" not being eligible criteria for deletion, I'd have to disagree, at least in this case. Take the very first paragraph of the article for example, I'd suggest that both its style and tone, make it almost incomprehensible. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I do suggest that you list any images or other non-text content you're concerned about here: WP:IFD. I find the language in the article a little hard to parse, but I don't agree that it's incomprehensible. I do agree the article fails WP:NOR.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kia ora, Deconstruct, S Marshall,
The observation was made, on Talk:SpiritWorld by User:Nortonew, that a Spirit_World_(Native-American) article needs to be written ... and I would observe also a Spirit_World_(World Indigenous Oral Tradition) page. And I agree, and hope to lend a hand there in the future.
As to the origin of the universal cultural icon of "Spirit World", well I never coined it ... witness 1,480,000 Google entries for that phrase. Clearly this article SpiritWorld can be refined and expanded dramatically, and I and others I am sure will do so ... yet this particular article is not oriented towards a specific regional or cultural focus, but clearly towards the global. {Now that this article is complete enough to attract interest and clear intent, I will reach out to others that have expertise in the subject and suggest they lend a hand at the growth and polishing of the SpiritWorld article. (Should this article name be changed to Spirit_World??)}.
I suppose Wikipedia itself would be labeled as "New Age" by many, as would this or any of the native, spiritual, or cultural articles or traditions worldwide. I suppose it depends on who is defining the term New_Age. Here at Wikipedia it is described as largely "Western", in contrast to this SpiritWorld article which is equally Eastern and Oriental, because it is global. As I resided in Aotearoa, New Zealand, for four years ... and my wife is Japanese ... it is not possible or interesting for me to attempt to be 'Western'.
arohanui, enfolding love ... Millennium Twain (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no 'world indigenous oral tradition' as such, and to suggest otherwise is an obvious violation of the rule against original synthesis. (For a start, who isn't indigenous to the world?) The various spirit worlds (note two words, no caps) of mythologies from around the world are diverse and distinct, and deserve separate, intellectually rigorous treatment and proper research. If a 'worldwide' article is needed, it should be primarily a disambiguation page to point people to the various specific pages. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incoherent and unencyclopedic. The topic, whatever it is supposed to be, is completely unclear and amorphous. There is no way to make any judgment on what sources and concepts are appropriate to include or exclude. This kind of essay-like synthesis could easily consist of a hodgepodge of material from areas of religion, mythology, metaphysics, paranormal, superstition, mental illness, quantum physics, meditation, prayer, folklore, et cetera, et cetera. Tim Shuba (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a garbled synthesis. Contains some demonstrably untrue statements too: "The Rigveda... have survived as texts from the 2nd or 1st millennia BC. They were first recorded by scribes perhaps as much as five millennia earlier." (i.e. placing a system of narrative writing in the 6th or 7th millenium BC. See History of writing for why this is untrue). —BillC ^talk 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete chaotic, unencyclopedic essay. DGG (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

obvious redirect, if worth keeping, to Spirit world, itself a disambig page. Sticky Parkin 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "...our relationship to all our sister/brother trees...", "Women are said have a most sensitive connection" do I need to read the whole article? SpinningSpark 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incomprehensible gobbldygook. Original research Senor Cuete (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
Strong delete - neologism and synthesis. (Oh, and syncretism as well.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio

"Royal Confraternity" of a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. Appears to have little or no reliable third-party coverage. Disputed WP:PROD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: the following are the relevant policy and guidelines:

WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."

Does anybody see a pattern here? Does anybody think that a 'Keep' !vote that does not address the quantity and quality of coverage has much relevance? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep that is not a reason for deletion; if they want to use the word "Royal," it's their lookout. It seems to have an actual existence & notable members. . I would be very much more satisfied with some neutral reliable source on them , though. DGG (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (i) lack of third party coverage is a reason for deletion: WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (ii) Even a kids' tree-hut secret-club has "actual existence" (and, it would appear, the same level of both official recognition & third-party coverage as this topic) -- that doesn't make for notability. (iii) Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and a few notable members (many of whom are themselves notable for nothing more than being dis-established royals) does not make this confraternity notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the part of the nom: " a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. " was not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not directly a reason for deletion, and wasn't intended as one. However a "royal confraternity" implicitly draws its claim to stature from its relationship to royalty -- and when that royalty had been disestablished 90 years before the confraternity is established, this clearly draws its notability into question -- a question that its lack of third party coverage answers in the emphatic negative. Or to put it another way, given the shear volume of hand-waving about (generally bogus) 'inherent notability' that one sees in AfDs, I got my rebuttal in first on whether this topic was inherently notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tried to find some reliable, third party sources, but without success. --Yopie 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. While it needs a major cleanup, I can see no compelling reason for its deletion. The fact the Portuguese monarchy no longer officially exists is not a justification for deletion of an article on what appears to be a genuine order with notable members which is apparently open to all Roman Catholics, not just members of the Portuguese monarchy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so how do you propose getting around the lack of third-party sourcing, and thus notability? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't propose anything. I give my opinion. That's what an AfD debate is for. You have your opinion, I have mine. And remember the notability guidelines are just that - guidelines. They're not set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, as quoted above, is not a mere guideline, and likewise requires third-party sourcing -- which is a "compelling reason for its deletion". Your "opinion" does not appear to have any policy basis -- and therefore may be discounted as mere WP:ILIKEIT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't particularly like it. I have no particular views either way. I am merely voicing an opinion, as I stated. This is the whole point of AfDs. An essay (not even a guideline) such as the one you cited provides no basis for discounting the views of a contributor to a discussion. As to verifiability, there are enough third-party sources out there to verify that the order exists, so the policy's requirements are satisfied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bare mention of existence ≠ "significant coverage", so no "the policy's requirements" are not satisfied. The "whole point of AfDs" is to give arguments that are substantiated (by policy and reliable sources). Please read WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. Opinions lacking any substantiation may be discounted. ("Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.") Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is an AfD. Its purpose is to determine whether an article should exist or not. That is completely different from WP:V, which is to determine whether information within an article should be on Wikipedia or not. As I said, there are enough third-party references out there to substantiate its existence. Therefore it meets the requirements for WP:V, the only applicable policy. Notability guidelines are fluid and are guidelines. If they were set in stone then AfD discussions would be rendered obsolete. Notability and Verifiability are different issues. Whether all the information within the article can be verified or not is a separate issue and one we are not discussing here - all that matters is whether the order exists (it clearly does) and whether or not it is notable (which is what we are discussing and is effectively based on opinion).

So, to recap, there are two separate issues here:

a) Is the existence of the organisation verifiable? Yes, it is.

b) Is the organisation notable enough for an article on Wikipedia? What we are here to discuss. I believe it is for the reasons I have given. If you disagree then that is your prerogative, but please do not start quoting non-applicable policies to back up an argument and claim that other editors' opinions are invalid. That is bordering on a lack of civility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is not "significant coverage" in "reliable, third-party sources" on the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio, so "Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So, NO it is NOT "completely different from WP:V". And as it is POLICY not a mere guideline it is NOT "fluid". To recap:

Is mere existence sufficient to meet WP:V? No it is not. (See quote above.)
WP:V, WP:GNG & WP:ORG all require significant third party coverage. Has any of your "reasons" discussed this? No they have not. (Nor for that matter have they discussed any relevant policy or guideline supporting your opinion.) Are they therefore in any way relevant? No they are not.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we are uncivil aren't we! Well, we'll let the closer decide, shall we? I'm rather tired of debating with a ranter. Frankly, I'm not really bothered about this article, but I'm a little surprised at your reaction to someone who dares to disagree with you. You obviously don't like your opinions being challenged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also looked for reliable 3rd party sources without success. dougweller (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without comment on this article, the above discussion based on the content of WP:V appears to have missed some key facts. The quote from WP:V given by the nominator was from a short-lived version that was reverted fairly quickly because the change (introducing the word 'significant') did not have consensus. Also, the inclusion of 'third-party' in the sentence has been disputed by a number of commenters on WT:V (myself included), and I am uncomfortable with the claim that that has consensus either. WP:N, of course, continues to require significant coverage in third-party sources as it always has, but as Necrothesp points out, we can choose to ignore such guidelines if they tell us to delete an article that common sense indicates we should keep. JulesH (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I was quoting an obsolete/non-consensus version of policy. However, I would question whether we have been presented with any "common sense [reason] indicat[ing] we should keep" -- the best that Necrothesp has come up with to date appears to be the very lowball 'it exists'. Strong, valid reasons for ignoring guidelines need to be clearly articulated for the call to ignore them to be given any weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used my own name which is even mentioned in the Confraternity entry, but I was the one tagged with WP:COI for editing this article. I feel compelled to mention for all those who say they can't find reliable sources that there are quite a few listed when they aren't being wrongly tagged or reverted. All are independent and verifiable. Those are the primary Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. One challenger seems particularly biased against formally regnant royal houses (PLEASE refer to his own text on the discussion page of the article; this is not my opinion) and apparently assigns negative reliability based on that status. The same challenger questioned the citation of a Spanish publication which was already found in an online bookseller site and for which I offered an electronic version as well. I have asked what facts support the individual's claims that the two royal house websites and the publication are unreliable and the only answer I get is a challenge to produce proof that the Spanish Academy which produces an annual publication listing the Confraternity is "recognized". Since there is no authority in place to do such a recognition this is impossible. How can the source be called unreliable when the challenger has not even reviewed the source itself and doesn't even know the authors? One of the primary authors is Jose Maria de Montells y Galan, who you can find as a direct source in a number of Wikipedia entries which are not challenged. Of course no one bothered to follow this up on the discussion page where I defended this publication and offered to share the information. I would have thought that someone truly concerned with Wikipedia policy and not personal opinion would have wanted to know things like that. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is admittedly weak and needs major revision but we can not do so while the entry is under challenge for deletion. There are many activities which could be referenced with sources such as the websites for the royal houses of Georgia and Rwanda, but as long as they are challenged for being "former royals" and therefore "unreliable" there is no point in adding further target material. I hope to see the notability of this article proved here or in further arbitration and then help to build this article into a more informative one. I thought the purpose of this process was to avoid deletion but one challenger in particular has been completely negative and provided no helpful information to improve the article. My alleged WP:COI edits were to add sources and improve format of sources as they were challenged. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would note that:
1. DaleLeppard has not presented any evidence that any of these sources are reliable.
2. The royal houses in question have overlapping membership with the Confraterntiy, so they are not independent.
3. None of the disputed sources are actually WP:CITEd for any specific information in the article, so it is not clear what, if any, information they contribute on the topic. In fact, as of now, the only citationed information in the entire article is that "Saint Theotonius [was] a 12th Century Portuguese canon and royal advisor".
4. This lack of citations means that it has not been established that this organisation "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources".
Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are independent and verifiable. What possible reason could you have to challenge the reliability of two royal houses and a Spanish publication that you have never even read? Do you hold all Wikipedia articles to this standard because nowhere else do I see such scrutiny applied. It seems you can not be satisfied. You argue that the Confraternity is not notable enough for the Wikipedia yet according to you it influences several royal houses and publications. How is that possible? Your words might even carry weight if you so much as looked at the sources but I had to walk you through all of them myself. The sources were added, as you well know, because you challenged the notability of the organization. That is their purpose. When the arbitration process is completed the article can be revised and appropriate citations can be added based on the sources given as well as new sources applicable to the material that will be added. Yes there are members in these royal houses and many MANY other organizations. Independent means simply that the Confraternity exercises no control over these organizations and entities and that they are not a component of the Confraternity. That is established. Whether there are mutual members is a standard beyond reason. If it was uninteresting to the people in a position to give it credibility it would not be worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia in the first place. Again you ask the impossible. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a lack of independent third-party sources that can be used to establish the notability of this organisation. Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify why you apparently disregard the cited sources. If you are simply assuming the constant erroneous "unreliable source" labels are correct or failing to find something on a search engine then please actually look at the sources cited. If you have questions perhaps they can be answered. I would like to improve this article but only constructive input will help. Third party or independent sources means that the subject organization is not a parent or sibling component of the source and exercises no control over the source. That is the case in all the sources cited. Thanks. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references are used to establish the notability of the organisation. They are simply listed as "general references". No attempt is made to connect them with the content of the article, no attempt is made to show how the support the notability of the group.
There is nothing to suggest that the "Registro De Ordenes De Caballeria Del Reino De Espana" is a reliable source. I found 7 google hits for that publication. Two of them appear to be bibliographic databases; neither could find any library which held the volume. A reliable source would, presumably be available somewhere.
The reference to The Sentinel is insufficient; Sentinel is a disambiguation page which lists 16 local papers by that name. The article title, "Ode to a Portuguese king in a Carlisle church" sounds like a local-interest story. It doesn't sound like the sort of in-depth reporting that would be needed to establish the notability of an organisation.
The third "general reference" does not establish the notability of the organisation. As is to be expected in a "Community Scrapbook", it lists happenings of local interest - an "Academic Bowl" victory by a local middle school; a local church presents "Gold Medal Marriage Awards" to three couples who were married 51, 54 and 62 years respectively. And the "Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio" donates $1000 to the local Habitat for Humanity. There's no investigation in "Community Scrapbook" articles. The reporter almost certainly did not ask the couples for proof they had been married 62 years. This isn't investigative reporting. This isn't subject to intense fact-checking. But most importantly, the three-sentence paragraph in the "community scrapbook" does nothing to establish the notability of the group. That paragraph wouldn't establish notability in Wikipedia. Simply referencing it outside of Wikipedia does not magically make it sifficient to establish notability here. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: during this AfD DaleLeppard has:
1. Flagrantly disregarded the advice of {{Uw-coi}} that "If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: ... participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;" (emphasis in original)
2. Made edits to the article that go well beyond WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, and has included removal of templates, introduction of unreliable wiki references (in a manner that also violates WP:MOS#Link titles incidentally), reintroduction of an unpublished and thus unverifiable reference.
3. Has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims about the independence and reliability of sources. I would note that despite his pretense that I am the sole skeptic on this that (i) that the reliability of the Spanish source was challenged by Yopie first, and (ii) that nobody except DL is defending these sources. I would further note that the membership of the Rwandan 'King' and a "claimant to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia" in this organisation clearly impeaches the independence of these 'Royal Houses' as sources.

I would conclude by requesting that DaleLeppard exercise restraint on this AfD (in keeping with WP:COI) and that in particular he take lengthy discussions of the reliability of sources either to talk (to which I've removed his latest, lengthy missive) or to WP:RS/N, which are the more appropriate fora for these discussions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like an improper policy interpretation is being used as pointed out by JulesH Since WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", not whether the coverage meets individualized "significance" tests. As far as WP:V, Necrothesp makes a valid point that there are verifiable third party sources. Msnpilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnpilot (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park Underground V2.0

Almost entirely unsourced, unlikely to ever be sourced beyond a stub, notability not established, the general "Underground" article was previously nominated for a selective merge to Linkin Park discography at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linkin Park Underground. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Rehevkor ✉ 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot. Searching pulls up no significant, reliable, third-party, sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although a merge into one article might also be a possibility. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fanclub albums with no media coverage? All fail WP:NALBUMS. Any needed info not already there can be added to Linkin Park discography. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into old main Linkin Park Underground article, which would then have to be recreated. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A solution which still neglects to address notability issues. Also not really a viable option since the Linkin Park Underground article was deleted/merged by consensus 7 months ago. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope its not too late to add:

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DarkZero

Delete Non-notable website. Google searches turn up only the original domain. Page was deleted once previously. In addition, this may fall under WP:CONFLICT as the article's creator and primary writer seems to only have contributions that advertise the site. Teancum (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - A number of "According to Dark Zero..." hits on Google News [4] in addition to the links from Metacritic. However, DarkZero itself hasn't been the subject of any news coverage or whatnot. Marasmusine (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything Chzz ► 16:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; re-creation of deleted content. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and unsourced (reliable). Should be salted if recreated like this. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, re-creation of deleted content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN website. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip P. Gaonkar

Keep the updates since my nomination show that he is notable A new name 2008 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ~~Fails to meet inclusion guidelines for academics. No references to show he is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Delete~~. ~~Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be very low. No books listed on WorldCat. News coverage practically nonexistent.~~--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep based on the results of the modified search by Madcoverboy. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). I’ve also re-done my WorldCat search with a few variations, and found two scholarly books with more than 200 holdings worldwide; one published by Routledge (247 holdings) and the other by Duke University Press (201 holdings). Given the publishers and the fact that the books are in very specific topics, these holdings reinforce my belief that he meets criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use a correct query: [5] At least 3 books, 76 articles, and several hundred citations. Obvious notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite a an obvious institutional conflict of interest on my part, Prof. Gaonkar is a notable scholar and (co)author/editor of at least 12 books and 76 articles: gScholar results Amazon results. Obviously a rhetorician isn't going to have any impact factor in something like Web of Science; one would no more measure an elephant with a teaspoon. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF, as established by User:Madcoverboy and User:Eric Yurken. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author, academician, and also quoted in several academic books see here --Ekabhishek (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the beginning, the article failed to describe Gaonkar. It looks okay now. He may be an Associate professor, but has some good citations in Goggle. He is also grandson of two notable people on Wikipedia. May be he has inherited writings from his grandfather SAPA. Gaonkar. It may be updated showing some comparison study among people in his field. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 demonstrated by snowball, nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet who twice earlier nominated the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Stalin

The subject of this article is fails the notability guidelines particularly having multiple non-trivial coverage in published sources, although mentioned in passing in several places and that is has many sources, all but two of them only mention J Stalin about one time if at all, most sources establish facts irrespective of the subject of the article and do not establish notability, the subject also fails WP:BAND, previous nominations for deletion were never allowed to finish due to interference and bickering. This is a rapper of local interest, with no significant coverage and the article makes several dubious statements, such as using the artist's album notes as a source.Fails: WP:NM, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, Troyster87 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's a lot of references, and I disagree as many are more than in-passing. The local part is hard to argue with (all SF/Bay area) but that's a big area and I think these papers have significant circulation. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a lot of references, there are only two that offer more than passing coverage.Troyster87 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lot and I'm not finding them to be "in passing" for the most part. Which two do you think are okay? Hobit (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep - suggest early close. Pointless nomination of an article that has survived two AfDs and obviously meets formal notability criteria, suggests weak understanding of notability in the nomination. Local interest is fine. There are many more sources out there if anyone would care to look.Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify how it obviously meets the criteria? Isn't it premature to suggest a snowball keep? If sources exist point them out.Troyster87 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- While not all of the sources linked as references in the article cover him in depth, there's enough there that, to me, he comes off as notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough references to support the article and be notable. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to clarify the first reference is an article/interview in free newspaper[6], the next is a claimed mention in "murder dog magazine", next are the artist's "album notes" that are not independent of the subject and cannot establish notability, second is "sideshow" article, where J-Stalin is mentioned in passing, at the very end, as a resident not the subject of the article[7], not a reliable source for establishing notability, the next is a very brief six sentence "article" in another free newspaper, not a reliable reference for establishing notability[8], the next is a link to comments on stash.com, not a source of anything, the next is a San Francisco Bay Guardian listing of various concerts[9], listings are not reliable sources for establishing notability, another is a dead link to another free newspaper (bayview)[10], the next is an article about stem cell research and rap music, where J Stalin is again mentioned once in the end, where he is not the subject of the article, this does not establish notability, furthermore Yo! Youth Outlook does not appear to be a reliable source for anything[11], this article mentions J Stalin four times, but is not about him it does not assert that he is of any note and only states that he has collaborated on music with other rap artists, that are also not notable[12], only mentioned in passing, I don;t feel that mention in one or two (free newspapers) sources counts as non-trivial coverage in multiple published sources, please make sure not to be prejudiced by the clean look of the article, the references are well inserted however the references themselves are lacking.Troyster87 (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, J Stalin is not signed by a major or any label, does not have significant if any verifiable album sales, nor does he have any press in the mass media, he doesn't even have his own website (ixnay myspace).Troyster87 (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major mentions (full lengthy articles, profiles) in significant reliable source newspapers. These free papers are major operations - one is owned by Village Voice, etc. Both have large staffs, full editorial process, circulation in the 150,000 range, and are leading mainstream papers covering local music. Leading representative of a style and a local music scene. Important to the development of a genre of music. Has collaborated and performed with many notable musicians. Called influential, groundbreaking, etc., by the various sources. Tracks on notable albums. Signed to label that is considered a leading center of a sub-genre of music. Covered every year in the round-up of music, #1 local rap sales, some mention of a billboard chart, "regional stardom"[13], etc, etc. As someone said in the last deletion nomination, what's the point having notability criteria if people won't follow them? If you think the criteria should be changed then please lobby there but not by nominating articles for deletion. Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have major mentions multiple newspapers? That's really the only question. What are "full lenghty" articles? 2 is not multiple. Which notable musicians has he collaborated with, do they have wikipedia articles, do you have links proving this?, Please provide a source stating that he is a "leader", "groundbreaking", Tracks on what notable albums? A notable label? In what roundup of music? Regional stardom is "local", local isn't notable, what do you mean some mention of a billboard chart?Troyster87 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're pretty much wrong on all counts. Why don't you figure it out for yourself, preferably before nominating articles for deletion. Don't you have anything more useful to be doing on Wikipedia? Wikidemon (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get all ad hominem on me please and assume good faith. Please answer the questions.Troyster87 (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making up notability criteria and you're asking me to answer questions for you that you can figure out for yourself. If you want to know his discography, for example, some of it is mentioned in the article and you can find the rest on google. The deletion discussion is for several editors to say what they think, not a challenge match. Wikidemon (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies the general notability guideline and criterion 1 of WP:BAND which is essentially a restatement of the GNG. Setting aside the deadlink and sources not accessible online, we have a SF Guardian profile on the subject, a Guardian article giving an award to the subject (not a concert listing), two additional Guardian articles that qualify as "non-trivial" but probably not "substantial" coverage, a non-trivial YO! article mention (see no reason to declare it non-reliable), and two newspaper blogs, one a profile and one a non-trivial mention, which may or may not be reliable sources depending on the amount of editorial control the newspapers exercise over their blogs (see Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources). Two or three clearly significant source mentions plus three or four more non-trivial mentions is easily enough, even without considering any other sources in or outside the article. There's no non-local coverage requirement for people as there is for organizations, so it doesn't matter if all the article's citations are local, nor does it matter if the subject has a website or record label (so long as source coverage is available). ~~BTW the first AfD was closed early due to procedural issues, but the second closed just over a week ago after a full run with a consensus that the subject's notability had been established.~~ Baileypalblue (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a year ago, I'm still not used to the change from 2008 to 2009 :) Baileypalblue (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, and on another note, not a real award. Not an article. Not a reliable sources for establishing notability.Troyster87 (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure :). Agree the award is not notable, but I'd say an award from a newspaper counts as significant coverage by that paper, even when the award itself is not notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep (probably speedy) - Easily passes all of the guidelines the nom claims this topic fails (that they threw in WP:V is bizarre - a topic only "fails" WP:V if anything about it is unverifiable). The coverage is substantial and in-depth, particularly from the San Francisco Bay Guardian. A pointy nomination. --Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as still notable (it's not temporary) and still well-covered by reliable third-party sources (see Baileypalblue's comment above). On an unrelated note, I don't appreciate being canvassed by the nominator for this AfD just because I made a trivial formatting edit last April. - Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - user is a banned sock. //roux 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Jones (Georgia politician)

Article is about a failed candidate for the US House of Representatives in 2008, which fails WP:POLITICIAN. Was de-proded for arguably meeting WP:GNG, but the cited AJC article is a human interest story that doesn't do anything for notability, and I was under the impression that any campaign coverage isn't enough either (this wasn't a close race or anything). BryanG (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- yea, I un-prod-ded this article because it looked like he had enough to warrant at least an AfD. I'll go through and see what, if any, other sources are floating around out there. SMSpivey (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the only reason this person would be notable would be for campaigning for office. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable losing candidate, nothing else in the article meets WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not fulfill the requirements of our notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see no agreement about whether the sources are sufficiently specific, which is I think the main issue.. DGG (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Wicca

AfDs for this article:

This OR-magnet fails the general notability guideline in that the topic lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article survived a previous AfD, but has only deteriorated since then, and in its present form is pure OR: a sort of meandering essay on some perceived affinities between Wicca and Christianity, salted with a few Bible and other quotes; the references for the article relating directly to its subject derive principally from quasi-essays on personal websites or blogs. The OR and substandard sourcing would not by themselves form a rationale for deletion if they were correctable, but they're not: once you subtract the OR, even from the earliest versions of the article, there's really no article left, and no reliable sources you could use to create one. The sole text apparently dedicated to the topic doesn't appear to describe a set of beliefs or practices that any actual group of people ever held or engaged in, and one of the most extensive online sources I found on the topic turned out to be an adaptation of the Wikipedia article. While there appear to be some number of people active on the internet who evidently would like to combine some aspects of Wicca and Christianity -- hence the Google hits on the phrase "Christian Wicca" -- there's little evidence that they form any identifiable group who hold in common any halfway-coherent set of beliefs or practices such that you could say with confidence that something called "Christian Wicca" even exists, let alone meets WP:N. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am not convinced that this is so much a branch of wicca as it is a descriptive term for an existing school of thought, such as Unitarian Universalism, I believe it is not an independent topic. However since there is so much info out there it should be kept, since it appears notable, the article is in horrendous condition, but articles on notable topics written poorly in an overly-convoluted essay format shouldn't necessarily be deleted but cleaned up, or in this case douched.Troyster87 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - preceding comment was made by a now-blocked sockpuppet of a notorious AfD troll. - 02:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete No clearly independent, reliable sources are currently listed in the references. While the blogs and other SPSs clearly indicate that more than a few people are interested in this, I don't see anything that would meet WP:V or WP:N. If kept, the article should be thoroughly trimmed of OR. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is in strong need of a rewrite -- probably half of the text can go, if not more. But at the end of the day, I think there is something of value regarding the Wiccan faith that can be salvaged. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It had a snowball keep last time. It is easy confirmable that this exists, and is noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Google gives it 28,700 hits. Looking through some of the results, it appear to be a well established belief system. Dream Focus 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The number of hits is so misleading as to be meaningless. For instance, 16,000 of those hits disappear once you exclude "meetup.com" pages. The overwhelming majority of what's left are doorway pages or landing pages, whose sole purpose is spamdexing. I tried sifting through as many of the remainder as was feasible, but was not able to come up with even a single one that might qualify as a reliable source. The articles at experiencefestival.com turned out to be adapted from the very Wikipedia article which is the subject of this AfD. Nor could I find a book or article on the topic -- save this, which doesn't appear to describe an actually-existing faith, but rather seems to attempt to point out affinities, and does not appear especially reliable. If someone else has had better luck, I'm all ears. There appear to any number of people on the internet who would like to think of themselves as both Wiccans and Christians, but very little evidence that any identifiable group of people exists who hold in common a discernible set or beliefs or practices that would qualify as "Christian Wicca". If anybody could offer sources -- or a single source -- that would suggest this topic could satisfy the general notability guideline, I'd be grateful if they would. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22christian+wicca%22 I found a link to the books in the original nomination. Also, the original afd discussion mentioned to historical facts, of how when converting to Christianity, some also kept their Wicca beliefs, mixing them together. Many missionaries were told not to cut down a sacred tree someone worshiped, but instead to Christianize it, give it a new meaning. History Channel had a bit about that years ago. Dream Focus 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Amazon review of that book is enlightening, particularly that this was a self-published book sharing the author's personal beliefs, and that it's a poor source for historical facts. I don't have the book in my hands to comment on it from personal observation, though.

Looking through the references is weird. There's a lot of criticism of "Christian Wicca" as a concept, and precious little description of it. An awful lot of people are awfully angry about something they simply assume the reader is already familiar with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the book is self-published it's unsuitable and won't meet WP:RS. As for people retaining their Wicca beliefs after the spread of Christianity, this is something of an anachronism. No practitioner would have referred to such beliefs or practices as "Wicca" prior to the 1950s. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant and third party coverage as stated by WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through the history, and reading the article when it was at its longests, and I see plenty of quotes from the Christian Bible. Witches and whatnot were listed there in places, but the word Wicca was not used. Might be why finding notable sources is proving somewhat difficult. Is there a single physical church that is dedicated to this religion, or does the IRS or other government agency in any nation recognize the existence of any Christian Wicca religions? I know Wicca is recognized in the United States by the IRS, the military, and universities. But is there officially recognized merger of the two anywhere? Dream Focus 11:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles needs reliable sources, not bible quotes.--Sloane (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability comments and the fact that its a paradox rdunn PLIB 10:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it links to dozens of Wikipedia articles, including Grieg's music in popular culture, and has some good sources, so it needs clean up, not deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking to other pages is a ridiculous reason for keeping an article. Also, none of the sources is any good, since none of them are from third parties.--Sloane (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly the books in the references should meet WP:V and WP:RS. Or you would need to show that those sources do not apply to the article. There is no indication in this discussion that this is the case. So clearly we need to keep the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be exactly one reliable source in the references section: it's Joanne Pearson's Wicca and the Christian Heritage, published by Routledge in 2007. The phrase "Christian Wicca" does not appear in the text even once -- which, considering the topic of the book, is extremely telling. Nor does it appear in her 2002 Popular Dictionary of Paganism. How could it be possible that a recently-published monograph on Wicca and Christianity would not mention the topic even a single time if it were sufficiently noteworthy to merit an encyclopedia article?

The remainder of the books in the references section are unlikely to meet WP:RS: For example: two are by Sylvia Browne; another editor points out above that Nancy Chandler Pittman's Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition is self-published; and Carmina Gadelica is unrelated to "Christian Wicca".

I found a passing reference to "Christian Wicca" in the The New Encyclopedia of the Occult which, if anything, tends to confirm that the subject is sub-notable and does not appear to exist in any sufficiently-organized fashion such as would make it possible to write an encyclopedia article about it. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is simply no such "significant coverage" to be found. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily confirmable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conforms easily to encyclopediac standards, and I don't see why we wouldn't want to include it. And why are we doing another AfD on this article? Ks64q2 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because, despite brusque and blithe assurances to the contrary, there is no evidence that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which is the principal measure of whether a topic merits an article. For those who are convinced that it has, please point the sources out so they might be added to the article. To date, none have been offered. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject is certainly notable, with a quick search I found searchable books with "Christian Wicca", a few more on "Christo Wiccan", and several dozen on "Christian witches". "Crisis of Identity: Obliteration of Definition Within the Wiccan Community" might not be a source itself but has a section devoted to this subject with references that certainly seem useable. Google Scholar also has a few hits on "Christian witches". The rest is clean-up concerns and it seems apparent there is no shortage of energy for deleting material here and adding lots of tags to point those interested in constructive directions. -- Banjeboi 16:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STARFLEET International Conference

Non-notable event; reads like an advertisement. No references to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to that Star Trek wikipedia.Troyster87 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This editor has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. - Dravecky (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beam it up, Scotty.... to Wikia Unencyclopedic for our purposes, belongs on a Star Trek themed Wiki, not here. -Senseless!... says you, says me 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still am not quite sure if it truly would be better off on a Star Trek themed site, but it meets our notabality guideline now with the sources that were added - Keep. -Senseless!... says you, says me 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is about a long-running real-world event and not a fictional "Star Trek" event, multiple on-topic articles in reliable third-party sources are available (it took me all of about 15 seconds to find articles in the Charlotte Observer and Fort Worth Star-Telegram), and AfD is not cleanup. I'll work to whip this article into shape but a stampede to delete without any attempt to flag concerns first is not called for. - Dravecky (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic. Sounds like an ad. Move it to the Star Trek Wiki! Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion, but if it gets kept it will need to be moved since the current name violates MOS:TM. TJ Spyke 05:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have taken the editing axe to the prose, chopped out the minutia, added a fistful of references from reliable sources, and done a bit of formatting. There's still plenty to be done to expand this article about a real event but it's now in a state that I assert proves notability per the guidelines. - Dravecky (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proponents suggesting moving to a star-trek themed wiki should reconsider their opinions, due to the fact that neither such wiki hosted by wikia will accept this article, as (1) neither cover content related to fandom, and (2) neither uses the GFDL license so cannot accept content moved from here. Sources added to the article suggest this is a notable conference, and I see no reason not to cover it. JulesH (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patently unencyclopedic. If even the Star Trek wikis won't take it, that's all the more reason we shouldn't either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notion that a Star Trek Wiki's focus on a fictional universe should influence which real-world subjects are covered at Wikipedia is odd. For example, they have no Barack Obama or ham articles but do cover George W. Bush and bacon. Also, per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, the "unencyclopedic" !vote is hollow and devoid of meaning a deletion discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event. Does not read like an advertisement. Lots of references to third-party sources. Kudos to User:Dravecky who has demonstrated what is to be done in such cases before bringing articles here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real-world notable event that is more appropriate here than in a fiction-based wiki. Agree that cleanup is needed, but deletion is not. Teekno (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

Francis Lucille

Delete: Questionable notability, cited published books appear to be "self-published" with cited publication list being a "web store" on Francis Lucille's website. The article is poorly sourced and feels like pure advertisement. Plastikspork (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments

This is not an advertisement.

I will gather the required details and update the website. Please do not delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not promotional: I have removed the link to the publications link --I have only provided the link as convenience to the readers.

I have tried to provide to the audience at large genuine information that I have encountered.

I will remove the ,sections that are marked with citation needed currently. Once I get the citations I will add the section accordingly.

1) http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Sobottka.pdf A course in consciousness, by, Stanley Sobottka ,Emeritus Professor of Physics,University of Virginia ] http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness] Has given the reference to his website www.francislucille.com This is not promotional. Please see the references to his work from other two sites.

2) Dennis Waite. The Book of One: The Spiritual Path of Advaita, ISBN 1903816416 http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/thoughts_lucille.htm

I will remove the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reserving judgement, for now: My gut feeling is not favourable but I will wait to see if referencing and tone can be improved. The first thing I find in Google is that he is not the most famous person with "Francis Lucille" as part of their name. This makes searching harder. I am not impressed by the Stanley Sobottka endorsement (it is just a personal endorsement in a self-published essay) but there is a book with an fairly long interview with him here [14]. The introductory bio can be used to verify parts of the bio here. I don't have access to the other book to check that although an Amazon search confirms that it does cover Lucille. It seems to me that the subject is borderline for notability. I don't think that everybody who gets a namecheck in a few minor books on spirituality should automatically be considered notable. Maybe we need a bit more. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments

Thanks So much every one for taking time to give the references.I appreciate all your effort and references.

I will try to gather more information as possible. Please give me some more time. --Some of the most precious diamonds are very rare ....I understand the constaint and spirit of wikipedia too,to verify the information available.

1) The Tao of Now: Daily Wisdom from Mystics, Sages, Poets, and Saints,Page 102 Josh Baran Publisher "Hamptom roads publisher company inc." ISBN 978-157174-8842 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum [15]

2) Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite (Paperback - Feb 25, 2007) [16]

3) Awake in the Heartland: The Ecstasy of What Is (Paperback) by Joan Tollifson (Author) page 96. [17] Quote --Everything is grace .When we say yes to what is ,we say yes to grace.

4) Everyday Enlightenment: Seven Stories of Awakening Sally Bongers page 21. [18]

5) The Art of Letting Go: A Pathway to Inner Freedom (Paperback) by Vidya Frazier (Author) [19]

6) Vision Walk: Asking Questions, Getting Answers, Shifting Consciousness by Brandt Morgan,page 100. ISBN-10 0976763141 ISBN-13 978-0-976763-4-7 [20]

7) I am trying my best to get more information as possible. I have found one more reference [serach for francis]--[21] "The line of advaita thinking that I have followed seems best represented by Francis Lucille. He studied advaita with Jean Klein who, in turn, had it from Krishnamenon [Sri Atmananda] and others in the 1950s. Francis Lucille may be the foremost exponent of the advaita tradition currently teaching. "

8) Here are tons of audio cds of francis lucille 2)http://openlibrary.org/a/OL3829177A Though many of them seem to be out of print. I found one --http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1882874811/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all

8)The Bhagavad Gita (The divine conversations) Alan Jacobs ;page 3. [22]

9) Being Home: Returning to the Place We've Never Left by Thomas H Beyer (Paperback - Mar 1, 2007) ISBN-10-595-42465-1 ; [23]

Amarhindustani (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Hi, I have re-written the entire section. based on the book you have suggested. I will slowly add each section.it is difficult to do it in one go. let me know if the tone and content is fine.[reply]

Just my observations on your comments. >The first thing I find in Google is that he is not the most famous person with "Francis Lucille" as part of their name.

I agree ;but the topic that I am editing is related to spirituality.where the greatest are silent about their own works. and their works and contributions are realized much later. Few points: Just a search on amazon shows --that there are at least 30 books which quote the present author. In spite of it ...I am finding hard time finding self-published book by Francis ,which confirms ---In matters related to spirituality --The most powerful are very silent and this precisely why I why I am trying my best to save this article.

Please feel free to modify the article ...I have quoted tons of books in the external links sections.

Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Here is another reason to keep the article. Please refer to :http://www.ramana-maharshi.org.uk/ in Advaita vedanta ---"Ramana Maharshi" ;Please refer to the publications in Journal...a very reputed journal. "PUBLICATIONS The Journal, "SELF ENQUIRY", which was published two - four times each year by the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK between 1993 and March 2004, has now ceased publication. Contributors included Robert Adams, Ramesh Balsekar, Douglas Harding, Catherine Ingram, Francis Lucille and David Frawley, along with others among our own members." This is not a name sake magazine.it is a journal.[reply]

Sprituality is very differnt from "commercial and celebrity" related articles.where more notable --are famous. Here the greatest are very silent.

so please dont delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is one more reason: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Klein References "Francis Lucille" "He left an important legacy which sometimes refer teachers contemporaries who were his disciples, including Éric Baret, Francis Lucille, Jean-Marc Mantel" Amarhindustani (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more reference: Reference: Greg Goode, Ph.D., is editor of the Nondualism and Western Philosophers page of Nonduality Salon. Selections from his writings appear on his webpage, No Presence, No Absence. he quotes ..... Francis Lucille, a beloved teacher.... http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0013.htm

Another reason why the article should not be deleted. Amarhindustani (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more reason: Jean Klein [[24]] is considered one of the most eloquent masters of Advaita Vedanta of the twentieth century century. Francis Lucille is the prominent disciple among them..others include Éric Baret and Jean-Marc Mantel. That is another reason ...that I have to keep this floating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have verified on this website and everything seems authentic. Chebard (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)— Chebard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go with delete here. From what I see, the whole argument in favor of keeping the article relies on that, within his circles, people really like the guy, which for Wikipedia, doesn't really fit into the guidelines, unfortunately. As to the pointer that the greatest of spiritualists remain silent, I wholeheartedly agree to this assessment, but the corrolary to this is that the greatest will be made well known by the populace. I see blog entries, I see an interview, and I see some books mentioning him by name - but as I understand WP:N, that doesn't really fall within the guides. I opine, then, that we need to find more on Mr. Lucille, most certainly, and suggest that the article would be deleted - but as usual, I have no prejudice to a recreation if we have material on him found after the deletion. In the event of deletion, I suggest userfying the article for User:Amarhindustani. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, ~~delete~~. This is annoying because I think it's a good faith article about a subject a new editor genuinely feels should be covered here, and I'm conscious of how bitey the AfD process can be. — The article's falling foul of various rules designed to prevent Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool (see notability in particular). Those rules oblige us to look for significant coverage in reliable sources, and they force us to delete if the coverage isn't there. I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold. I'm sorry, Amarhindustani, because I can see you've put a lot into this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments

* Retain :

The above recommendation have not taken all the points menioned before arriving at conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC) This article has : Published interview with francis lucille in a book along with spiritual luminaries ^[1] This is very notable book![reply]

1)Lynn Marie Lumiere, John Lumiere-Wins.The Awakening West: Conversations with Today's New Western Spiritual Leaders,ISBN 9781592330102 ^[2]

2)in Advaita vedanta ---"Ramana Maharshi" ;Please refer to the publications in Journal...a very reputed journal. "PUBLICATIONS The Journal, "SELF ENQUIRY", which was published two - four times each year by the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK between 1993 and March 2004. Contributors included Robert Adams, Ramesh Balsekar, Douglas Harding, Catherine Ingram, Francis Lucille and David Frawley, along with others among our own members." This is not a name sake magazine.it is a journal.

3)Jean Klein [[25]] is considered one of the most eloquent masters of Advaita Vedanta of the twentieth century century. Francis Lucille is the prominent disciple among them..others include Éric Baret and Jean-Marc Mantel. Amarhindustani (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Amarhindustani, please, if you have additional information pointing to the notability of the article, add it to the article and note in here that you've added material. If this is notable, we need to know on what grounds it holds up to the notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. Please, enlighten us? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I have strong points to support the above statement. could you let me know when you are planning to delete the article?. I just need some more time. in the mean time ,I am hoping some one else might pitch in to support me too. Thank you for the time and feedback. I appreciate it. Thanks 75.80.152.211 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Amarhindustani (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debates usually stay open for five days and the closing admin decides on the basis of the arguments put forward in the debate. However, this one has been relisted because few people took part. So you have another five days to make improvements. SpinningSpark 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is non-trivial coverage in multiple published books (many added since nomination) so I think this meets notability. However, the prose of the article is truly awful for a Wikipedia article. If this was written in a more detached, factual style it would probably never have been nominated here in the first place. SpinningSpark 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I vote Weak keep as well. We need to get more editors on it. It is clear that the current editor is trying to do the right thing but he needs help. He missed out on the standard Welcome message, so I have given him that, which should help a bit. Even so, we need somebody who understands this stuff (which I don't) and who is experienced with editing to work through the article issues and sort them out. Ideally, we want a shorter, more neutral and easier to understand article. I have put it in Wikiprojects Biography and Spirituality. With luck that will attract interest. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There seem to be third party sources, but no reliable sources. They all look like writings from other new age gurus, not from neutral sources.--Sloane (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. It is problematic dealing with subjects like spirituality and astrology because they are essentially just made up stuff with no canonical sources defining what is notable and what is fringe. The trouble is that some of it is clearly notable, despite being made up, due to its long history of being seriously believed in by so many people. I got as far as verifying that the book with the interview was not self-published and that the publisher is not exclusively a publisher of spiritualist books. That is what made it a weak keep for me. In my heart, I would love to see the back of all this stuff but I know that it isn't for me to impose my POV on Wikipedia. Maybe I am overcompensating here? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've taken a quick pass at cleaning it a bit. To the main author I'm unclear if wp:notability has been met. Unlikely a credible source will state Lucille is the leading teacher of _____ in California but something that asserts why we should have an article on the subject needs to be pointed out quickly and in the WP:lede. Barring that we may be able to sweep a bunch of less notable bits together if they are widely quoted or something. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to the closer to say that I've gone through the article again after these edits were made, and I still feel we're short on reliable sources for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments

Response to the comment made above:

>"I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold"

Additional Interview from a "Third party source" Neutral publisher: 1.The Below book has interviews from worlds most influential spiritual teachers. 2.Please refer to the interview -->copernican shift: Francis Lucille

Title The teachers of one : living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality / Paula Marvelly. Other Title Living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality Author Marvelly, Paula. Publisher London : Watkins Pub., 2002. Description xiii, 281 p. : ports. ; 24 cm. Notes Includes bibliographical references (p. 279-281). Summary A collection of interviews with the world's most influential spiritual teachers as well as less well-known teachers on the nature of non-duality. Contents All my troubles seem so far away: Satyananda -- The dharma bum: Wayne Liquorman -- The smell of burnt almonds Pratima -- The secret garden: Tony Parsons -- Copernican shift: Francis Lucille -- The house of God: Vijai Shankar -- A course in miracles: Mira -- Magical mystery tour: Bharat -- All you need is love: Catherine Ingram -- Love me tender: John de Ruiter -- Amazing grace: Pamela Wilson -- No guru, no method, no teacher: Isaac Shapiro -- The beat generation: Vartman -- San Francisco renaissance: Gangaji -- The godfather of soul: Ramesh Balsekar -- Rendezvous with Ramana -- Who am I?: Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi Amarhindustani (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article doesn't include a single reliable source. Totally fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments

*Comment

There are three very extensive interviews with Francis Lucille in books published by publications of repute [These are not just references, but full length articles]. In response to the above observation ---The article doesn't include a single reliable source. Totally fails

Please consider the following facts. Jan Kersschot. THIS IS IT. Watkins ISBN: 1-84293-093-1 “Perfume of Peace” [Full length interview with Fracis Lucille].

Marvelly, Paula (2002). The teachers of Living one. London: Watkins^[3]. pp. 61-71. ISBN 1842930281.

Watkins Publishing^[4] (est.1894) ….continues in its long tradition of unillustrated publishing, specialising in the spiritual traditions of the world, ancient wisdom, divination and philosophy. ^[5] “There are many engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, hence it is reliable .”

This is a publishing house of repute established in 1894.

• The Interview is published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses. • The Article is signed. • There is an extensive interview in this book with Francis Lucille. • The books have interviews with teachers :Gangaji[26] , Ramesh Balsekar[27] , Eckhart tolle [28] etc Who are already on wikipedia. So it puts him in equal footing.

His books are published in France ,German ,Spanish etc. Books published in other languages: One of the book is published by ,publisher of repute -- http://www.originel-accarias.com You can find that this publisher has published books on other authors of repute as well ,like Dalai lama etc 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) Amarhindustani (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "equal footing" argument: See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Individual merit. Plastikspork (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see interviews and articles in Editorial reviewed Journal.^[6] --- Francis Lucille. The relevance of what he speaks in other disciplines. Lucille, Francis, A Conversation with Jack Labanauskas, Part 1, Jan. ’02, Issue #79, pg. 1 ^[7]

Lucille, Francis (interview) – Labanauskas & McKean Jan. ‘02, Feb. ’02, Nov. ‘02 Amarhindustani (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article, as is, is poorly written in tone and presentation. I will assume good faith though that the subject is notable as a teacher and/or author. All the sourcing and good faith efforts need to continue however to 1. Rewrite the article neutrally and 2. Convert all sources to become inline citations so others can see clearly what is stated about this person and that it is verifiable. To Amarhindustani, you might try a little exercise where you write the article as if this person had recently died. Neutrally you would overview their life and accomplishments. Once you have that start migrating the current material together with it and add sourcing. Even if the article survives for now it will likely come back here if exponential improvements aren't made. -- Banjeboi 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire Too much link-spam, self-published sources, dubious sources from cult websites, etc... Lacking any meaningful content or reliable source to establish notability. Jwray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Clear delete there's nothing here that even aspires to notability per our GNG and specific guidelines at WP:BIO. The "sources" are all self-interested. Eusebeus (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Categories: Spiritual teachers and Advaitin philosophers. Could some one move this to the to the categories of Spritiual Teachers.

This is not much about the person but about the teaching. Please see other teachers who are already there in WIKI. Adyashanti,Ramana Maharshi,Ramesh Balsekar etc. The request is because --The yardstick used to evalutate the notablity etc will be very different in each category. For example --the publishers in each category and number and type of people accesing this information will vary. We cannot expect the same viewership and publishers reach ,and commercial value of article written for a baseball game and fencing. Please don't compare apples to oranges.Some of the comments above by you are very valuable . sprituality is not very commercial. so finding sources and adding them takes time. in addition to that --some one is this category. may add some very valuable points and can be of great help. Thank you for all the help and suggestions. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments

*Comment

Conference given at Non profit orginization in 2003 . ^[8] Other speakers in the conference are all very respected in their respective fields. Amarhindustani (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Every time ,I edit and discover something new . I was starting off with the word --Keep. Please count my vote as only one. where ever you find my login. Amarhindustani (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - best not to keep saying keep, just append comments. Keeps the discussion from being to obfuscated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

I agree with Jwray a lot of the sources seem self published none of the links seem to establish notability definitely not enough to have a article. Kyle1278 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to have been the subject of multiple, independant articles per WP:BIO.TheRingess (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. The cited sources are non-RS websites or books published by minor presses. The subject's own books are themselves non-notable; a worldcat search shows that Eternity Now is carried by only 1 library (in Singapore), while his other English books are not carried by any library! Typically even obscure books can be found in 10-100s of libraries; consider for example Rod Dreher, whose bio was up for a recent contentious AFD; his book Crunchy Cons is found in 3077 libraries listed on Worldcat. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments
*Comment : you are comparing the number of books and viewership of two different categories. Please compare the same among the same category --advaita or nodualily.

Delete. Notable per WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability has not been established and referenced sources are of questionable meritJlrobertson (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarhindustani's comments

*Comment Could you please be more generic ..which of the sources are questionable and what is your criteria for your conclusion.

Comment

Thank you for the feedback. Some of the comments above have been very helpful.but some just are too generic and indicate lack of knowledge of the subject matter ,in that case my humble request to you --is to add comment but not vote . I would appreciate ,if you can be more specific.

1.About Notability and Sources: Please don't compare Apples to oranges.

Please compare the article with any of the existing topics under similar category -- Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta There are not as many Readers/viewers[compared to viewership of romantic novel orviewership of baseball game] for this subject and hence you will not find big publishers.

This Author’s books/references are published by Major publishers world wide ,i.e. Watkins [established 1894] Publishing; Publisher: Kamphausen[German] who also has published books of Eckhart Tolle etc, The books have been published in 4 languages --German ,French ,Spanish and English.

For example --please find the references of Adyashanti or any other speaker on similar subject. you will not find big publishers as you expect for Fictional Books. Note as per Wiki --"Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary".

He has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable and intellectually independent.
Some of the sources cited involve evaluation of the original information.
People independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published .
non-trivial works focus upon this subject.
It is non trivial --- you have the subject in detail.
A credible independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial.
The person is regarded as an important figure and is widely cited by their peers or successors.

If you could extend the dead line for deleting the article ..I hope some more will be able to give ,constructive comments. Please give me few more days.

Amarhindustani (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. i am not an expert, but to my view the article is kind of new. i am not aware of how things work here, but i've seen much-flawed articles lasting for years before they were improved. either delete the article now and wait for the editors to publish it back when it is more suitable for wikipedia, or let them more time. however, deleting it now might prevent the editors working together in its "unflawing." this is just my philosophy, and it may well not be endorsed by wikipedia, but at least you've got my two cents about it. Twipley (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . The publishers are reputed.and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial boards. As noted above, Francis' work has been published in many languages and is cited in many books and articles. It is an important component of the contemporary literature on advaita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advaitastudent (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Advaitastudent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep . Dear Pundits, The publishers are reputed.and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial

Francis Lucille speaks about "The Truth", "The Reality", "Our True Nature" . His teaching is associated with Non-duality, the common ground of Advaita Vedanta, Ch'an Buddhism, Zen,Taoism and Sufism, the same common ground which is at the core of the message from Sages, Saints, Jagadgurus and other prominent Advaita Teachers.The publishers are reputed and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial.

Please don't delete it, but humbly request The Pundits to point out the 'Blips' and the 'Gaps', so the Truth Seekers can come together to fix it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patyogi (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Patyogi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me, to warrant a hold, and allow the article to grow! --Ekabhishek (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Amarhindustani has canvassed over 20 users from the spirituality project for this afd. Including User:Ekabhishek and User:Twipley who are now arguing keep.--Sloane (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had requested help through the talk pages from users who are familiar with the subject and might help me improve the material.Many are helping me with valuable suggestions.I have pointed them to the article.To give their feedback.Some one familiar with the subject will be more helpful to guide and suggest.The objective is to improve the article.

You are most welcome too. And by the way ,those I have requested help ...many of them have tagged it as delete. what they vote is not important.I found an interesting subject and need help to improve it. PERIOD.Amarhindustani (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing a few arguments here that basically state that this biographical article should be treated differently than all other biographical articles. Personally, those arguments are not compelling enough to actually treat it differently. It's my understanding that we have notability guidelines for several reasons but primarily to guarantee that all information in the article is backed up by reliable sources. If several reliable sources are added that talk about the subject (in the body of the article, not in the EL section) then I would change my mind. This debate is scheduled to last several more days, that should be plenty of time to add those secondary sources. I've gone ahead and removed most of the material that to my eyes, constituted original research and unverifiable claims so it reads less like an advert (reading like an advertisement is not grounds for deletion but improvement). I know the author of the article has put some hard work into the article, but it also takes a lot of hard work to become familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and processes and the reasons why those guidelines and processes exist.TheRingess (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks so much ...I appreciate all your help.Yes,As per your suggestions I will add some more sourcing.

I was of the impression that the article will be deleted in 5 days. That was the hurry. if we have few more days .. I will read about the rules in detail. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Th

- Comment Regardless of how much time is left, perhaps more attention to the article and less canvassing of fellow editors. It should be a matter of hours or minutes, not days, to include the references from 3rd party reliable sources. Adding articles to Wikipedia is not always easy, but always rewarding.TheRingess (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you.There were too many rules and terminologies and it was going in circles..after some time ,I gave up.

As I was under the impression that the article would be deleted. But I did find some articles to illustrate what you have suggested. but ,still there are too may words.it seems as though ,I am fighting a case in court.Too overwhelming,and drowned in words :-) Amarhindustani (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Respectfully, from just my viewpoint, you are probably feeling overwhelmed, because instead of reading the guidelines that fellow human beings were pointing you towards, and thus putting forth the effort to address their concerns, you expended too much effort canvassing other editors, perhaps calling friends to ask them to contribute to this discussion, and arguing that essentially this article should be treated differently. That's a lot of effort to go to, and would probably exhaust anybody. As I mentioned, your efforts would have (and still can) be better spent addressing the concerns raised during this discussion (just a fellow human beings opinion which in no way reflects Wikipedia policy). The article will be deleted at the end of the discussion period, when an impartial admin reviews the discussion and makes a decision as whether or not consensus is to keep or delete. In other words, it's not over until it's over. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Point Taken.BTW,Only today ,I have requested others to help me out as I thought today was the last day to save the article,otherwise it might be deleted:-).I will take a closer look at all the information.Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep . The publishers are reputed and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishvs (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Mishvs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete . This would be in line with the decision made about the arguably more notable self published Stephen Knapp Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Knapp, Stephen Knapp was deleted despite being referenced over 50 times on Wikipedia, whereas Francis Lucille is only referenced in user pages. - Q Chris (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way someone put a rather biased plea to vote to keep the article on my user talk, with implications that whoever wanted it deleated "didn't understand spirituality". I expect that they have canvased many others in a similar fassion. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article's changed a lot since I last read it, and I notice that more than half the article now consists of citations and sources. I'm going to change my recommendation to userfy (which means that the article no longer appears in the main Wikipedia space, but it's still on Wikipedia in an unindexed space that's set aside for Amarhindustani, so that he can continue to work on it without pressure of deadlines and bring it back to a deletion review when he's made it ready in his own time.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete here - I like the suggestion above of move somewhere else, perhaps his own sandbox where he can work on it with help from those inputting here. I have my doubts that he will be able to establish notability. Francis may be a great guy and notable but he has not done much to get notability it appears. One must sometimes toot one's own horn to be heard or have someone else doing it but not via Wikipedia. Will help on sandbox effortJlrobertson (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I am trying to consolidate all the points suggested and planning to address them,one by one,just few more days will of great help.The material has sources,and I hope that some one stumbling on the article may pitch in too.There are tons of references in print media and comparatively not as much on-line-That adds to the delay.if you delete the article immediately then the chances to bring it back will be remote.Just my 2 cents. Your call.Amarhindustani (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems very fishy to me that the majority of keep votes are from brand new WP:SPA accounts which appear to be created for the sole purpose of voting: Advaitastudent (contribs), Patyogi (contribs), Mishvs (contribs). Checking the logs there are two others whos votes were deleted (due to the fact that the were verbatim copies of one another?): Advaitalover (contribs) and Mvs 82 (contribs). At the very least it smells like WP:MEAT, and at worst it looks like WP:SOCK. Plastikspork (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me clarify on this. I did ask for some help yesterday from editors and some of my friends ,as I was under the impression that the article will be deleted after 5 days,I wanted some help.

Some of them might have stumbled on this site. Those I have asked for help was only with the intention of asking them to cite any sources that they know in addition to the ones that I have already mentioned. As clearly mentioned at the page ,it is not about popular vote. so if any one just votes it can be neglected.Please see my comments above on 19 March 2009 to be precise --04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC) on ,I have clearly mentioned this.I am consolidating all the points and suggestions given above and will modify accordingly.Thank youAmarhindustani (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok since I find that there are few visits to this site ,I would like to consolidate the points mentioned above.so that some one might be able to address one or all of these. I need viewpoints and suggestions [backed up by very logical reason and supporting evidence) .
- a) Link Spam ?
- b) Self Published Sources ?
- c) The use of "cult" websites. ?
- d) Promotional Nature of Article ?
- e) "Significant coverage' in 'reliable sources" ?
- f) "Not the most famous person with Francis Lucille in their name ?
- g) Notability not met by "a namecheck in a few minor books on spirituality. ?
- h) "Something that asserts why we should have an article on the subject needs to be pointed out quickly." ?
- i) "Publication List being a "web store" on Francis Lucille's website. ?
- (j) Most all of these issues relate to tone, notability and verifiability. ?
- (k)Is the current tone acceptable?
- (l) Publications are minor?

Most of thes were addressed,but I would like to know how may of the above are still open and need to be addressed.

Just as a brief note: Notability and verifiability have clear criteria:

- 1)Significant coverage is deemed to be more than trivial but less than exclusive."
- 2)From "reliable sources" :
  - a) Third Party published material
  - b) Secondary Sources
  - c) Peer Reviewed Journals
  - d) University Textbooks
  - e) Magazines, Journals and Books "published by respected publishing houses"
  - f) Mainstream Newspapers
  - g) Independent from subject.

Please give me your comments and supporting evidence. Amarhindustani (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will be adding these to the main section shortly.but wanted to bring these to your attention.
I have additional factual material for inclusion [Need some more time to include it in main section]:
1) Book: Jan Kersschot, This Is It: Dialogues on The Nature of Oneness, London, Watkins Publishing. pp180-189, "Perfume of Peace", Interview with Francis Lucille; pp219-223, "Revelation of The Divine Hand", Second Interview with Francis Lucille. Complete chapters dedicated to Francis Lucille

I won't presume as to which section these should be listed in but, it is critical to point to the other authors interviewed in this third party published book include Eckhart Tolle,U.G. Krishnamurti, and Douglas Harding, contemporary teachers with current listings in Wikipedia. This addresses Item b ( Self Published), Item C ( Cult Websites, as other interviewees are in Wikipedia), Item g ( notability/namecheck). Table of contents available at ^[9]

2)It should be noted that Paula Marvelley's book, The Teachers of One:Living Advaita has a complete chapter on Francis Lucille, entitled "Copernican Shift." This cite addresses Item b (self published), Item c ("cult websites"), and Item g (notability/namecheck) above.

Of note: Gangaji and Ramesh Balsekar, both non dual teachers listed in Wikipedia are other interviewees in this book.

3)Also, the complete list of "namecheck" references for The Book of One, by Dennis Waite, . They are pp 31, 110, 165, 169, 188, 201, 206, 240, 248. This addresses the "namecheck" comment, Item G above.

The Awakening West: Conversations with Today's New Western Spiritual Leaders by Lynne Marie Lumiere.

4.It is important to notice Wikipedia regarding the "third party

book publishers" who have published Francis Lucille in France and Germany. Both are independent publishers. The Publisher for Germany is J.Kamphausen/ Mediengruppe, which has an entire book line covering Advaita, including the German translations of "Silence of The Heart" by Robert Adams, "I am That" by Maharaj Nisargadatta, and many more. The website is here:^[10] Similarly, the French publisher is Originel-accarias, the pre-eminent publisher of non duality books in that country. A list of authors is here:^[11] including Wikipedia authors Douglas Harding and Osho and P.D. Ouspensky,Papaji (Poonja H.W.L) and Ramana Maharshi.

5)Francis Lucille is listed as an author of 3 millenaire, a leading peer reviewed online journal on Non Duality in France along with other Wikipedia authors like Ken Wilbur, Byron Katie, Douglas Harding and Andrew Cohen.

Website listing of authors:^[12] Further, nondualite.free.fr is another peer reviewed website with work included by Francis Lucille, Ramesh Balsakar, and Jiddu Krishnamurti, all listed in Wikipedia.

6)All of these third party sources are relevant in that they address the criticism regarding notability and verifiable sources.Amarhindustani (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can some one point me to any one article currently on WIKI which you think meets all the above criterion.

Under the same category, of course -Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta. So that I can use that as reference to shape my article.Amarhindustani (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources at all about this spiritualist. Works self-published, and no other indications of wide fame, acclaim or infamy. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (1995)

Delete These are just listings of songs based on listener voter tallies/requests [according to the article European Hit Radio Top 40, which I redirected to European Hit Radio (which itself has neutrality issues)] --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comment that these are unofficial charts no different than a radio station's most requested songs of the week. Non-encylopedic and probably WP:IINFO. --Wolfer68 (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete- Per nom, useless list. Lets drink Tea 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom §hawn poo 01:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, try changing it into a category instead. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: impractical lists of an unofficial chart. JamesBurns (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compelling rationale for deletion has been advanced, and it's particularly important to have one in giant bundle-deletions like this. Townlake (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are effectively "Lists of songs played on Radio Station x (year y)" and as such are each non-encyclopedic as both an "indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:IINFO) and a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" (WP:NOTDIR). All articles should therefore be deleted per the content policy WP:NOT.--Rogerb67 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Yates

Non-notable autobiography, few Google hits and no Google news hits. Prod was removed by swigzracing, a group affiliated with the subject. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The links are pretty much just single appearances of his name, and the article talks just as much about his personal life (not really notable for a racer) as his racing one. The article doesn't really include much linking and I'm not even sure the competitions he's been in are notable. Vincent Valentine 16:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, no relevant G-hits anyways Lets drink Tea 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article clearly does not meet the notability guidelines, and is not reliable sourced beyond trivial coverageTroyster87 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no sources. Article appears to be autobiographical in nature. Deconstructhis (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an easy one. According to Mr. Yates' own career highlights listed in his article, he is pretty unremarkable. This includes "Receives AMA Professional Roadracing License...", "First experience...", and a couple of 4th place finishes. that's pretty much "it." --Quartermaster (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy If he's indeed hired to drive in the AMA Superbike Championship, it's only a matter of time before he competes and passes the criteria without objections. I suggest we move this to the userspace and give the user in question some guidance on the relevant policies so they can improve their WP editing. (If not improved in a couple of months I'd support renomination) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rory James MacLaren-Jackson

have added details of rory's youth enterprise training in schools. --Trialfinder (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added references and citations for different area of rory's activities. Note, as stated in article he writes under his middle names 'Rory James', so I have added the link to his book 'Dude, Where's My Career?' on Amazon.co.uk and some additional articles and interviews. --Trialfinder (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC) — Trialfinder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Still doesn't indicate notability. No significant coverage. See WP:N Lets drink Tea 20:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears not to be notable, I was unable to find any relevant hits on google and no reliable sources either. Lets drink Tea 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough independent coverage to establish notability.Nrswanson (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead up to the Iraq War

This Article is a copy of the intro to the Iraq War main article. It would require a complete rewrite to make it a new article. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No article is needed for this Lets drink Tea 00:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Keep The Iraq War article is too big, would benefit from pruning Lets drink Tea 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of a process of pruning the main Iraq War article out in to smaller pieces. Adding more context to the article would be fine.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could benefit from pruning as mentioned, but a good way to prune it is how i did 2007 in Iraq so as to keep the articles together. §hawn poo 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable fork-for-length. JJL (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reduce page size, can add a link "Main article: Lead up to the Iraq War" on the Iraq War article. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iraq War until there is a proper summary of the split sections to replace the moved content per WP:SPLITTING. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, now why didn't I think about that? Agree with MGM. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Iraq War. It being solitary takes away from the context of the Iraq War article, and worsens the quality of WP. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reduce page size of Iraq War and expand this page. --Richard (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glabermania

This seems to be a neologism. Other than the Wikipedia article, Google gets only one hit, from a doctor who purports to treat the condition, and Google Scholar gets no hits, indicating that the term is not used in the medical literature. A request to the author for sources that use the term has gone unanswered. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. This is a neologism and hasn't caught on yet. I found only one reliable source: [29] (through google news). If this later catches on, it will be used in more sources and we can recreate the page. Cazort (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT, WP:NEO Lets drink Tea 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inclined to make a weak call of hoax. One of the first links - Glaber - is a redirect to author Rodulfus Glaber, indicating nothing on having a desire to be physically hairless. On a Google search, the only other note I have is for the Naked Mole Rat (heterocephalus glaber), but dictionary definitions either point (in [answers.com]) to as a species in reference to H. glaber, and dictionary.com points back to the aformentioned Mr. Glaber. In fact, links in general seem to point to Glaber as a surname. Of the web links, the first is 404 compliant, and the second goes to a page that's been around possibly a year. References below are all over the chart - for example, reference 2 indicates a desire to shave twice daily, but the article in question is about "Massive foreign object ingestion". I see one on hirsuitism. The article even goes in, hinting upon it as somewhat of a sexual fetish. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Dennisthe2. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 16 hits on Google, and most of them aren't even in English. I think I'd have to agree that it's a neologism. Matt (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Touring Theatre Company

Advertisement for small theatre company. No suggestion of notability, and the creation of COI account Ytouring (talk · contribs). Calton | Talk 13:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article an advert when they are not a commercial company?

It seems like a theatre company that invented a model of theatre practice i.e 'theatre of debate' might have some notibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomface (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:ADVERT#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. Something doesn't have to be about something commercial to be promotional. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not convinced of notability and it does sound rather advertisement-like, whether it's commercial or not. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enchirito

I think they're pretty tasty, but do they really need an article? I can't find a single source pertaining to the food item proper, and I see virtually nothing worth merging to Taco Bell if we can hardly even verify what goes into it. Also, the article has been orphaned since November 06 and tagged for OR since September 07. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references appear pretty quickly. (Personally I wouldn't touch one with a bargepole - they sound revolting!) Deb (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. At best, merge to a list of former Taco Bell items. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind, per DHowell's notes, I'm going with a keep. Rock on, man. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the present article is unsourced, there are enough reliable sources for this to show notability and to improve the article. "Taco Bell's Enchirito really hits the spot" in The Gazette of Cedar Rapids; "Hey! Pick Up the Enchirito!; Taco Bell is ringing in the new year with something old: the enchirito" in the Los Angeles Times; and "Cerritos entrepreneur Dan Jones, creator of the enchirito, has gone from fast-food cook to franchisee" in the Long Beach Press-Telegram. Also, it is not a "former Taco Bell item", either. While it was discontinued in 1993, it was reintroduced back in 2000, and to this day is shown on their website as a menu item. DHowell (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started adding sources. I will probably add more later if this is not deleted. DHowell (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS thanks to DHowell's input. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this even gets a handful of refs it will have more refs then the majority of its counterparts. Hard to believe we can't find a good article in there. -- Banjeboi 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N due to DHowell's input. I think the article can be rescued and it's now on it's way to recovery. Geoff ^T ^C 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice work Dhowell. I essentially withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy . MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Science Association of Mid America

Unnotable, marginal organization in pseudoscience community. Tagged as an orphan for a year and for notablity in September. Brief mentions in three books don't assert importance. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: mentioned in two major works on the conflict (Forrest & Gross and Scott), and received multiple mass-media mentions for its involvement in the KBOE standards (e.g. [30][31][32][33](convenience link)[34][35][36] + a number of others that are behind pay-walls). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Being an orphan article is not a sufficient criterion for deletion. Neither is the group's pseudoscience. Article has earlier cited other sources, so three mentions in books is not the sum of the evidence. It might be accused of having marginal notablity, but is that not sufficient? Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might need to set up a List of organisations advocating young earth creationism (or similar title) and merge this (and other similar articles) to it. I agree with the previous two posters that Wikipedia should have something on these people, but I don't think there's enough there to warrant a full article in this form.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy already exists, and I would not be averse to this article being merged there. c^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The tags cited by the nominator are no reason for deleting the article. This is a minor organization, but the article meets Wikipedia standards for notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy per hrafn. The group is cited, but only in the context of the KBOE case. The group needs inclusion based on that, but not a unique article. Vulture19 (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy, as suggested by hrafn, on the basis of the reasoning shown in my earlier comment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Vulture19 and S Marshall. THF (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article has been deleted as 'created by serial hoaxer' who has, as Nick-D notes, been blocked for this behaviour. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Turner Staubenzie

(PROD removed without explanation by creator) Unreferenced, Non-notable soldier. A google search turns up 1 site which isn't a Wikipedia mirror. No news/scholar hits, but one books hit. Seems to have done nothing extraordinary in his career as a soldier. Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now, giving the article creator time to add WP:RS that establish WP:N. This article was just created, and I think cleanup is more appropriate than immediate deletion. Aleta ^Sing 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Note if kept, the article should be renamed to Turner Staubenzie without the title. Aleta ^Sing 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if some sources can be provided. This user has also created several more entries formatted in almost the same manner and also unsourced Chapple Norton, Thomas Pringle, Edward Mathews, and Major John Maitland. For what it's worth, I'm correcting the spelling and spacing issues on these. Wperdue (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Keep - per Aleta, is just a stub in the making. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO and the officer seems to have had a fairly unremarkable career so there's no reason to assume that sufficient reliable sources will exist. Editors have a responsibility for providing sources for all material they add under WP:PROVEIT, so newness is no excuse for keeping articles on people who don't appear to meet the inclusion criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly junior officer with an apparently normal career. Not especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. - Buckshot06
Delete. The American Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic Wars have been written about extensively, so I would expect a Google Books search to be able to find at least a mention of the subject's name if he were notable, but it finds nothing. The fact that the article is limited to bare facts about his birth, marriage and death and his military career suggests that this is the result of some genealogical research based on primary sources such as registries and military records. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, that was my impression as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who created this article has been blocked for creating a large number of hoax articles, including fake biographies. This appears to be one of their hoaxes (see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Pringle (Royal Navy officer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asher Holmes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning of the Valleys). Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ircloop

Unable to find anything that states that this site is notable. Unless I'm missing something, this site appears to fail WP:WEB. — neuro^(talk) 15:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete spam (not helped by poor quality article). WikiScrubber (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is poorly writen. 65.78.29.12 (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:SPAM --Mhking (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets drink Tea 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMBr57

PROD removed without comment. No claim of notability, all the references are irrelevant. Black Kite 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to PHP#Usage where it can mention that PHP, in addition to being a server-side scripting langauge, can be called from the command line, can be used to create native GUI applications, and can be used for shell scripting. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Technically not "removed without comment"; see Talk: HMBr57. – 74 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merge as a non-notable fork of a piece of software which we don't have an article on (r57shell). This isn't a shell script (the article is incorrect in this regard); it's a dynamically generated web page (like most other PHP applications) that can be used to execute commands on a web server. I'm surprised, though, that we don't have an article which describes r57shell, c99shell, or their ilk. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof. This is essentially a web script written in PHP. Not notable and not appropriate for a merge to PHP. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, there's no reliable sources that talk about it. Second, about half of the Google hits I found have been taken down and give me a 404 error when I try to look at them. Third, most of the OTHER sources I found weren't even in English (I know, I shouldn't be using that as an argument, but when there's no sources in English, that kinda says something against its notability). Fourth, the websites that were in English that hadn't been taken down made it look like this was a security hack to be used on a compromised web server -- in fact, the article on linux.com that's linked to in the article has comments posted on it to the effect of "this is the worst idea ever! Why would you install something like this on your web server??". Fifth, the sources that the article lists don't even use the term "HMBr57" in them -- they talk about "PHP Shell" instead, which is written by Martin Geisler, NOT Hosam Badreldin. So, in conclusion, I'd say that my best argument in favor of deleting this is that both it and its author both fail the notability test. Anything else and I'd just be rambling on. Matt (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the current search results for "hmbr57" are, in fact, Middle Eastern web boards which got hacked and had this script installed on them. A few of them even haven't been fixed yet. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Goodbuzz

Non notable anonymous author. Only links are primary sources. Topic seems to be just a advert hook to a blog page. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have this feeling of deja vu. Mandsford (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, doesn't seem notable. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, unnotable. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of minor local notability at best, as even the article pretty much admits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMBr57

PROD removed without comment. No claim of notability, all the references are irrelevant. Black Kite 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to PHP#Usage where it can mention that PHP, in addition to being a server-side scripting langauge, can be called from the command line, can be used to create native GUI applications, and can be used for shell scripting. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Technically not "removed without comment"; see Talk: HMBr57. – 74 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merge as a non-notable fork of a piece of software which we don't have an article on (r57shell). This isn't a shell script (the article is incorrect in this regard); it's a dynamically generated web page (like most other PHP applications) that can be used to execute commands on a web server. I'm surprised, though, that we don't have an article which describes r57shell, c99shell, or their ilk. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof. This is essentially a web script written in PHP. Not notable and not appropriate for a merge to PHP. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, there's no reliable sources that talk about it. Second, about half of the Google hits I found have been taken down and give me a 404 error when I try to look at them. Third, most of the OTHER sources I found weren't even in English (I know, I shouldn't be using that as an argument, but when there's no sources in English, that kinda says something against its notability). Fourth, the websites that were in English that hadn't been taken down made it look like this was a security hack to be used on a compromised web server -- in fact, the article on linux.com that's linked to in the article has comments posted on it to the effect of "this is the worst idea ever! Why would you install something like this on your web server??". Fifth, the sources that the article lists don't even use the term "HMBr57" in them -- they talk about "PHP Shell" instead, which is written by Martin Geisler, NOT Hosam Badreldin. So, in conclusion, I'd say that my best argument in favor of deleting this is that both it and its author both fail the notability test. Anything else and I'd just be rambling on. Matt (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the current search results for "hmbr57" are, in fact, Middle Eastern web boards which got hacked and had this script installed on them. A few of them even haven't been fixed yet. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyInfo

Non-notable software. On google I can see download sites that carry it and a couple reviews in personal websites [37]. Best source I could find is a 2002 review from the owner of Sitepoint, who calls it "yet another variation of the NoteCenter concept"[38]. The only source in the article is a single review in wikipedia which is signed by the software maker[39] (doh). Enric Naval (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, has a single source, and I agree with above statements.Spring12 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most software of this type is not notable, but in this particular case I'm going to argue that within the niche, this seems to be a bit more notable. After sifting through the shareware download sites that regurgitate the company's PR material, I found this, this, this and intriguingly, this. It's not OneNote for sure, but you do not get many actual reviews on this type of shareware-that-shows-up-everywhere applications. §FreeRangeFrog 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently sourced, random piece of software. Esteffect (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Dweck

Delete this short BLP article about a writer has been unsourced for 2+ years; his books don't seem notable - indeed none is carried by Amazon.com only used copies available through third party suppliers and no indication that he meets WP:BIO any other way either. Again, sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born and haven't heard news of him in a sufficiently long time that we cannot really say he's still alive with confidence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News archive search finds a fair number of reliable sources. These include a New York Times obituary of someone whose notability derives from his work with Dweck, so it would be reasonable to assume that Dweck himself would also get such an obituary, which is usually regarded as a bright green light for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reason per Phil to establish notability-almost anything featured in the New York Times can be automatically considered to be notable enough for its own article; as for references, that can be easily fixed. In fact, I might do that now. Even though it hasn't even reached Start class yet, it can be easily changed into a B or even GA article if enough effort is poured into it. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources found are substantial coverage, subject does not appear to meet any of the additional criteria in WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 14:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep...Stephan is currently producing television shows and working on his next book.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caricom Airways

There are zero sources available which gives this "airline" any notability. Am thinking it is quite possibly a hoax. Russavia ^Dialogue 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a hoax -- I found some lists of airlines including "Caribbean Commuter Airways" (Caricom), but is existence as a commuter airline sufficiently notable? Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide those lists? Because the alleged ICAO code and callsign does not exist in ICAO 8585-146, and has been removed by myself from the article. But even then, mere existence in a directory doesn't confer notability. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:54, 6 March 2009 (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) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds plausable, but not notable. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

Via where can I provide you with documentation? my e-mail: s.chin@caricomairways.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.190.58 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Renegade Five. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undergrounded Universe

Non-notable, no information given aside from one sentence (which is a general summary) Ejg930 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2009 (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) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent artice as a plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources to allow for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Harris

I placed a PROD on this article that was quickly removed, article concerns non notable architect that is unreferenced. Fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable yet. Maybe someday. The page seems to be part of a general PR effort (ghits are LinkedIn, Facebook, etc., not any kind of third-party coverage). J L G 4 1 0 4 12:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:03, 5 March 2009 (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) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound & The Story

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Sound & The Story

Contested prod. Instructional DVD. The author/instructor is notable, the DVD itself is not. Delete, or at the very least merge to Blackbird (album). Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why this is needed to be deleted; I see no reason why the DVD is not notable. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.243.250 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unable to find third-party reliable sources (click to see what we mean by that) that attest to the DVD's notability. The only way to remedy the situation would be to provide such sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:07, 5 March 2009 (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) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourceable article about a DVD of questionable notability Lets drink Tea 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable instructional DVD. Any worthwhile (and sourced) content can be included in the guitarist's article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Vakili

Google search reveals Wikipedia mirror sites only -- as well as what might be a small role in a film. But I can find no reliable sources whatsoever establishing notability for this film critic/historian. What's more, the "Controversy" section is a complete non sequitur, given over to a personal essay of some kind -- nothing to do with article's subject, at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (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) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The "Controversy" section has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article, and I am also unable to find any neutral, reliable sources that might demonstrate notability. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Ferreira

Delete doesn't seem to be much by way of reliable sources looking through google for this guy. It's been an unreferenced BLP for over 2 years, and he's sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born or whether he's really still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find refs back to wp Chzz ► 16:44, 6 March 2009 (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) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: broke at least one important story in Botha's time. Apartheid's environmental toll. Ottre 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete, the comment on the article's talk page suggests the subject may be notable, but without references both this assertion and the content of the article cannot be verified. —Snigbrook 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardmen RFC

Not notable. This isn't the Otago University Rugby Club, whiich would be notable - it's simply one of the social teams which plays in the University's competition. Hardly of any particular note even locally, let alone beyond Dunedin. NOTE: Looks like it has had a CSD notice attached to it at some point which was removed by the article's creator. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable sports team Lets drink Tea 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate nationalism

This article does not cite any relevant sources, and no effort has been made to find them since the page was tagged 5 months ago. Article should be deleted under WP:NOR Jonovision (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article can be saved. I would like to see the corporatism category built not dismantled. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been more than enough time to fix it. In the five years since the article was created, nobody has added relevant citations. The warning tag was added 5 months ago, and nobody has touched the article. Can you provide any citations that would justify keeping the article? --Jonovision (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so I don't know what you're worried about. It's tagged sufficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs) 2009-03-05 07:07:35
    - Comment - The point I'm trying to get across is that this is an abandoned article. It was probably based on original research, and nobody has been working to improve it. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state#Ways to spot article potential, especially points 4 through 7. --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep loads of news refs to this; needs improving but there's no deadline -- Chzz ► 06:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please do show us to these news refs. I'm still trying to figure out what corporate nationalism is, because I haven't found any sources outside of Wikipedia. --Jonovision (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with corporatism until there is enough reliably sourced material there to merit its own separate article. This one is simply WP:OR. THF (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This merge was already discussed, and there was unanimous opposition. See Talk:Corporate nationalism. --Jonovision (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have trimmed the article to a point beyond objection, I hope. There is enough material there to go on for anyone looking for this topic specifically.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A note on sources:

This article has cited two sources:

The very first edit claimed the text was "Taken from the Christian Falangist Party of America website." (Christian Falangist Party of America "is dedicated to fighting the "Forces of Darkness" which seek to destroy our Western Judeo-Christian Civilization", in case you haven't heard of it. I hadn't). I couldn't actually find the relevant text on their website.

The current version cites a collection of essays called "Sport and Corporate Nationalisms". From page 7: "Simply put, and prefigured on the operations and machinations of multi-, trans-, and supra-national entities, the politico-cultural nation of the nineteenth century has been replaced by the corporate-cultural nation of the twenty-first century. We have termed this process, corporate nationalisms, processes that are qualitatively distinct from those that helped to constitute the symbolic boundaries of maturing nation-states during the nineteenth century." The authors seem to have coined the term specifically for this book, and it conflicts with what's in the article. It smells of someone googling for "corporate nationalism" to find references, and not actually reading them.

How do you guys even know that "corporate nationalism" means what the article says it does? --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting an article when it disagrees with sources is a matter of editing, not deletion. So here is the proper question to be addressed at AFD: How do you, Jonovision, know that no sources exist? You tell us outright in your nomination that "no effort has been made to find them". We must take that statement as including you, too. As such, you're part of the problem, not the solution. You're doing yourself the very thing that you are criticising. You're not making any effort to find sources, either. Put in that effort. Look for sources yourself. Report what you do and don't find. Looking for sources oneself is what one should always do before nominating an article at AFD. One cannot honestly say that no sources exist, the deletion policy criterion under which we delete articles in cases such as this, unless one has actually looked for them onesself. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

The article has lacked valid citations for 5 years
I looked for references, and couldn't find any, which led me to believe that the article contained original research
The one citation that is currently in the article is clearly worthless, and anyone who bothered to read it would realize that in a minute.
I assumed that nobody else even checked that invalid source, because it wasn't removed, and I also assumed that nobody else made any effort to find valid sources, as none have been uncovered.
If anyone who has tried and failed to find sources for this article before I nominated for deletion, I apologize for suggesting that you didn't make an effort.
I applaud the efforts of anyone who has looked for references since I nominated the article for deletion. However, suggesting that I haven't is a personal attack. I'm deeply offended by the previous comment, and would appreciate an apology. I care about the quality of Wikipedia's content, and I nominated the article for deletion because I sincerely believe that its content is dubious.

To summarize:

This article does not have any valid references, and several users have commented that they believe the content is dubious
The single reference which is on the page provides a conflicting definition
The comments opposing deletion have so far argued points of procedure. Nobody has stepped up to provide sources, despite one commenter's suggestion that they are all over the news. --Jonovision (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First a corporation will always have the interests of its shareholders primary, and all else secondary. If the company is gov't owned entity, then it is a whole different issue and still warrants deletion as it is already covered here Government-owned_corporation Jtyoga (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Corporatism does necessarily mean commercial corporation. The corporatist political culture extends to cultures that regard the family or extended family as the corporate group which the corporatists hold to be the primary unit of society. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the people who want to delete it could use the most elucidation on the topic.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Gregbard. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure how more discussion is going to help us reach consensus, because so far everyone in favor of keeping the article has simply said "The article can get better, give it a chance", or "There are references all over the news". Nobody has seriously responded to my concerns, so I'm going to ask a few basic questions. I hope the people who want to keep this article would be kind enough to answer them, and that this might kickstart a discussion.

Where did you first hear the term "Corporate Nationalism"? (In school? From a book? From the wikipedia article?)
Have you ever seen a work that provided a definition of the term, or did you infer its meaning from the context?
What indications have you encountered that the concept is notable, and not just a term that's used in a small handful of academic papers?

--Jonovision (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Think the term is mentioned in a couple of texts about the "learning company", an Australian version of learning organisations. Ottre 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Jono, you are obviously feel very strongly about this article which I do not. However, I always find the deletionist/immediateist view fascinating. You are crying out for references and that's fine. However, no references really only justifies deleting particular statements not entire articles. I don't see what the urgency is with you? I think I have resolved any controversy arising in the article through a substantial cut and reword. Jono, aside from the crdibility issues, do you have ANY objection to the statement on the topic currently? I.e. do you deny that Corp. nationalism is what is claimed in the article? If you do, there is a direction for people like me to go, by way of responding. If you are just demanding that people head to the library to satisfy your urgency, I don't know what to tell you other than "no deadline". We actually can go a long way on consensus, if we have consensus builders. If you have no content objections, you probably should just let it go. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I do have content objections. When I tried to find references that support the content of the article, I found the term being used in ways that conflict with the article's definition. [40] and [41] use the term in the context of national identities being influenced by corporate activities. [42] uses the term in the context of government intervention against foreign control of companies. In [43], it refers to trade protectionism. I think Aymathh2 said it better than I could: this is a term which "means whatever the use wants it to mean". --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I didn't really feel that strongly about the article when I nominated it for deletion. When I first came across it last week, I assumed it was a valid article, and went out to look for sources so that I could remove the citation tag. I was surprised that I couldn't find any, and even more surprised when I looked at the article's history, and saw that it never had any sources for 5 years, and that nobody was maintaining it. What I do feel strongly about is that the people defending the article seem to have a strong bias against fact checking. I feel like I'm the only person here who has actually tried to verify the validity of the content. If anyone else has looked, they haven't admitted that they have come up empty-handed. --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the current article is merely a dicdef. There does need to be some evidence of its general use. DGG (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article history, different editors have held different views of what the phrase means: corporations should advance national goals; nations should favor the interests of corporations; nations should delegate some roles to corporations etc. Seems like a dictionary definition of a term that is not widely used, and then means whatever the user wants it to mean. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. This phrase has been bugging me. It is like "Progressive Conservative": what does it mean? Took a break, took the dog for a walk, had some food, still bugging me. So I dug around a bit and found five meanings, which I have added the article. I suspect there are more. This would be no problem with a Wiktionary entry, which welcomes definitions of all the meanings of a term in one article, but it clearly violates the WP:DICTIONARY policy, which says that each meaning should have its own article. Any volunteers to turn this one into a disambiguation page pointing to five (or more) dicdef-type articles? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Aymatth2, I think this is quite a bit better than what we had before. I'm not sure about how we could split this up into five articles, though, since we don't have enough high-quality sources to establish notability for each individual definition. --Jonovision (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to save the article. As it stands, it is in clear violation of WP:DICTIONARY policy: "The same title for different things (homographs) are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data).". I don't think any of the meanings warrant a new Wikipedia article. Existing articles on Nationalism, Nationalization, Corporatism etc. cover the concepts. I have added a Wiktionary entry (see link in this article's page) which I think is sufficient. I suppose, maybe, the page could be turned into a sort of disambiguation page giving the different meanings and pointing to the articles that discuss these meanings. I would prefer to just delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sox-Rays rivalry

Contested WP:PROD. The Article highlights a baseball rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and Tampa Bay Rays. Should we keep this? –BuickCentury Driver 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know. You're the one nominating it. Please provide a reason on why you think it should be deleted, or why you believe a discussion is warranted. We're not here to mindread. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you weren't sure, why did you remove the PROD? And if you're not sure, then it's probably not notable enough. Anyway, I initially PRODed this article, since it's about a rivalry of dubious notability, based on a single season when these two teams were the two best teams in the American League East. It narrates a few episodes but otherwise there's no information about the rivalry itself. --Mosmof (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any time two teams compete in the same division for the same title and playoff spots, there is significant rivalry. The only issue in this case is the fact that the 2008 season was the first time the Rays were ever in significant playoff contention. The article needs cleanup and referencing, but numerous sources [44] [45] [46] [47] exist. Rklear (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By that logic, we should have articles on every divisional and localized interleague "rivalry" that exists. Not every rivalry is as notable as Red Sox-Yankees, or Dodgers-Yankees, or Cubs-White Sox to warrant its own article. By virtue of the fact that the Rays interrupted the Yankees-Red Sox dance that dominated the AL East for most of this decade, of course any match with the Rays and either the Red Sox or Yankees will become an intense showdown. Merge useful content into Tampa Bay Rays, Boston Red Sox, 2008 Tampa Bay Rays season, 2008 Boston Red Sox season. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper; who cares if there are articles on every rivalry? If they exist and are notable within WP:GNG, they merit inclusion. Whether a rivalry is "as notable" as Yankees-Red Sox is beside the point. Rklear (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this,[48] there were a few interesting incidents between the teams before 2008, but you'd never know that by reading the article in question. It basically serves as a recap of what happened last year, which can be summarized in the teams' season articles. For now, I'm going to say delete. I just don't see how this can be viewed as a real rivalry after just one season, and the article doesn't make a case as it stands. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess it would help if there was some sort of guideline for determining what is and isn't a notable rivalry. It's obvious there are rivalries, and then rivalries. For example, Rays and Red Sox were undeniably rivals in 2008, and you wouldn't have much trouble finding articles discussing the two teams as rivals. But any reference to rivalry is limited to the 2008 season. If the Rays plummet back to earth, I imagine they will cease to be rivals, whereas the Yankees and Red Sox will most likely remain rivals even if one team is in last place and the other is headed to the World Series. Also, "rivalry" is sort of indiscriminate/undefined - two teams in the same division are, by definition, rivals. But that doesn't mean they're rivals. I have similar concerns about Battle of Ohio (MLB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mets-Braves rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Mets–Phillies rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I'm curious to see what arguments are raised for keep or delete. --Mosmof (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. They may be in the same the division, but they're over 1000 miles apart and have only really played one notable series. It's not exactly Duke-North Carolina... Hippopotamus (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hippopotamus. The Red Sox and Yankees are one of the most significant rivalries in professional sporting and have a history going back to the beginning of modern baseball, the first time the Red Sox and Rays played each other in the postseason was last year. There might be some ill-will on the part of Red Sox Nation, but common sense says that a single postseason defeat isn't enough for a true rivalry to form. I'm not saying that it isn't brewing, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, articles are written on already notable subjects, not ones that might become so someday. -Senseless!... says you, says me 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, it's pretty clear the two teams are going to be rivals this year, too, and it makes little sense to delete an article that is on the borderline of notability when that notability is fairly certain in the near future. The article can be improved by discussing the previous ten years, the Rays signing Wade Boggs, etc. But I can also see an argument for consolidating this and similar articles into American League East Division rivalries, where notability is less of a close question. Incidentally, the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry in the sense Mr. Senseless is talking about only dates back about 30 years: the Red Sox and Yankees were almost never good at the same time until the mid-70s. THF (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- While I understand the need for sports fans to compare every rivalry to Yankees-Red Sox or UNC-Duke, that isn't the standard by which articles are determined to be notable or not at Wikipedia. A topic only need be covered by independent, third party sources. If the rivalry only existed in 2008, perhaps it would make sense to rename/move the article to 2008 Red Sox-Rays Rivalry or something of the sort. There is no reason or precedent that shows that these articles should be treated any differently than any other article in Wikipedia. In my opinion, the strong feelings against this and articles like it are driven more by personally-held sports opinions/emotions than Wikipedia's standards and community-accepted practices. SMSpivey (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be covered by Wikinews, not Wikipedia.--Sloane (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. As of now the only thing that makes this a rivalry is that they ran very close last season for the AL East and the then in the ALCS. One season doesn't make it a rivalry. BUC (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't seen much in the way of policy discussion here, mostly point of view on what constitutes a rivalry. If someone (the nominator himself as a good faith gesture, or Rklear who seems to have taken the time to research this) would take the time to actually add references, this article would fit even the most strict definitions for inclusion (WP:N, WP:V). I think this AfD is premature and the issues would have been best worked out on the article itself and it's talk page. By the way, a good copy edit and redesign of the article wouldn't hurt either. Mstuczynski (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll be making some general improvements to the article as part of WP:ARS. Magnetic Rag (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brasstronaut

Non-notable band. Speedy tag was removed with "(decline speedy - may be notable (check Google News))", so I did check Google News, and got only three articles, none of them proof of notability. In addition, all three of the hits are to www.pressdisplay.com, which is a compendium of back articles from a variety of newspapers, but every one of them is apparently removed from pressdisplay's database, so even if you wanted to pay to read them, they're no longer available. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google brings up 7 hits, none of them citable sources. ~Cr∞nium 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Firestorm ^Talk 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The decline was because of the 20 Google News hits I got, there was for example this article about the band in Vue Weekly, a reliable source. One might want to consider that source. Also, mentioned on Canada.com. So Why 11:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The two sources above, plus this, this and this just about cut it. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, not only for the sources supplied by SoWhy & Sparklism, but also for these ones too, [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet the notability criteria with all the sources listed above. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Myst (series). MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterium

Contested prod, notability not established, I can't picture it ever being established, nor can I picture it being developed into an sourced article that isn't just a list of locations. I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reasons, if not more:

Rehevkor ✉ 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. A simple google search on Mysterium + Convention turns out plenty of RS which can be used to establish notability. Instead of pulling the AfD trigger, there are many ways to flag an article for sourcing... or even improve it directly. MLauba (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for notability issues and it was not addressed. Rehevkor ✉ 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Redirect and apologies. My previous vote and the google check were made in a hurry without proper verification on my part. I do however not retract my gut reaction to the tone of the Nom, which to me reads like "I don't know about it so it can't be notable" the way it was phrased. MLauba (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Myst (series) and include one sentence about Mysterium there. Very short news article at InsideMacGames. Remainder of ghits are blogs and forums. Not enough to fully satisfy the WP:GNG. Not sure what RSs MLauba is referring to, if something substantial can be specified then I can review my !vote. Delete Mystralia due to a complete lack of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That reliable sources (questionable ones, at that) mention the topic is not sufficient. We need substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the game. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [[Myst (series) and merge Chzz ► 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whether this is kept or deleted, I would prefer to see this content at Mysterium (convention) if it will be kept, and move the text from Mysterium (disambiguation) here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Myst (series) as per MLauba Power.corrupts (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable, only deserves a blurb Lets drink Tea 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to Myst Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only one reliable source? Merge some of the content and redirect. --Sloane (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle

[2] ttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jBLUI0oS794C&pg=PA29&dq=%22Francis+Lucille%22#PPA5,M1

[3] ttp://www.dbponline.co.uk/book_preview.asp?b_id=70

[4] ttp://www.dbponline.co.uk/book_preview.asp?b_id=70

[5] ttp://www.dbponline.co.uk/WebFiles/watkins_catalogue.pdf

[6] ttp://www.ennea.org/what.html

[7] ttp://www.ennea.org/articles/EM_author_index.pdf

[IDW-8] "Inner Directions [Non Profit Organization] Conference,2003" (PDF). p. 44.

[9] www.thirdmg.com

[10] ttp://weltinnenraum.de/oxid.php/cl/alist/cnid/spirituelle-tradition-advaita/pgNr/3

[11] ttp://www.originel-accarias.com/Edition/auteurs.html

[12] ttp://www.revue3emillenaire.com/contacts/contacts.php?menu=contacts&page=liens_auteurs

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]