Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JForget (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 20 February 2010 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Blazo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 12 February 14 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn soap ingredients

Dawn soap ingredients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not encyclopedic, WP:NOT, unsourced, and copy/paste of other article. The main part of the article is only a list of ingredients, bringing nothing to Wikipedia. Ingredients explanation have been then added but are only copy/paste of other article. Stroppolotalk 23:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grays Harbor

Miss Grays Harbor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod-ed this a few days ago, author did not remove prod but is new to Wikipedia and it is clear he'd like to contest the prod. He has added some references since that time and I'm assuming will continue to do so but I'm still not sure that it meets notability criteria. Rather than decide on my own I decided to bring it here for community debate. See also comments on the article's talk page, and his assertions here that he is using the page as advertising (that notwithstanding though, if the subject is deemed notable it should stand, right?). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note by nominator: please see author's comments on my talk page re this afd. Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical documents pertaining to article are still being populated, yet references are abundant despite the Google sources cited herein. Wikipedia style methods and references to be adjusted according to Wikipedia standards. How do I go about finding out which changes need to be adjusted to be in accordance to Wikipedia standards? AlistairBooya (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is that this is likely a subject that no matter how much work you do on it there is no way to make it meet the notability criteria. Its been a while since I was involved in this sort of thing but from what I've done in the past I know you need evidence of significant news coverage, preferably more than just local coverage. Nothing I've seen so far shows that this local has reached that threshold. I accept that I might be wrong in that opinion (and hope for your sake that I am considering the amount of work you've put in) hence I brought it here to be discussed by the community. Not everything justifies a Wikipedia article no matter how much you may want it to, and the discussion here will give certainty to the matter. It sucks, I know. I also know that the Miss America's Outstanding Teen state (not local) articles were considered non-notable after I'd gone through and created an article for each state pageant. Eventually all the articles were merged into a single one. It sucked, but these things happen. Its just Wikipedia. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see how this could become an issue if every local pageant were to put their program up for review. Not all of them would have sufficient coverage. I can only hope that more users will comment to Keep this at least for the time being so that the AfD gets removed, if not just for another month to see what the response may be and to continue populating. I hope to continue populating the regional pageant information as to garner more interest for these scholarship programs. Might as well keep updating for another 5 days.AlistairBooya (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The talk page declares that Miss Grays Harbor "pulls up 23 results in a Google news archive search going back to the 1940s," yet ignores the fact that this same contest pulls up 11,100 hits at www.google.com itself. In the newspaper of record for this contest in Grays Harbor, Wash. there are 193 articles going back for the past decade on this contest alone. I would suspect hundreds more going back since 1949 that have not been digitized. Obviously Google is not connected to the deep archive of the daily newspaper of record, The Daily World (www.thedailyworld.com). Could this item use some editing? Yes. Is it worth deleting? No. Reportersteven (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remove "wiki" "facebook" "twitter" "myspace" and "hydroplane" from your google search and you'll be left with about 150 results. Read through those and you'll see that almost all are not the sort of thing that counts as significant coverage in reliable sources. Many are from other Miss Washington local pageants or the Miss Washington website itself, others are mirror sites. I think very few of them are suitable for establishing notability. I think it pertinent to mention as well that your comments on this afd are your first edits on Wikipedia since July 2009 and you are obviously an acquaintance of the author's on twitter (quote "@AlistairBooyah Put the same info on the official Web site, which will serve as your officiasl source, and then use citations based on Web "). I don't have a vendetta against your or your organization as it might appear, I just think that Wikipedia's notability should be robustly defended. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, PageantUpdater, your stalkerish nature is both creepy and disturbing to think you would track me down and find how I was connected to AlistairBooya. Well, for the record since you "outed me," he is one of 120 people I follow on Twitter. Since you tracked down my Twitter account, you now know I'm a reporter (my user name kind of gave that away, huh?), you know my real name, and, thus, am a pretty unbiased guy by my very nature. I am in no way affiliated with his organization nor is he my best bud. I saw a Tweet he gave out, offered him a bit of advice and then decided to weigh your arguments against his and chime in. I haven't been using wikipedia lately because I use the Internet features on my cell phone a lot and am not happy with the mobile version of Wikipedia. Now let's get to the root of this posting: You crossed a very creepy line, deciding to get very personal in your posting when you should have just stuck to the issues. Instead of relying on the information you had, you decided to go the extra mile and find out personal information about me. I suggest you read Wikipedia's Privacy policy very carefully because you just violated it. I will be contacting Wikipedia and hope this serves as a lesson for you. Reportersteven (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, in googling "Miss Grays Harbor" as you suggested I found Alistair Booya's twitter. In reading it, I saw your post. No stalking whatsoever. I think those tweets are pertinent to the issue. I cannot wait for more independent Wikipedian's to hit this. I'm happy to be called wrong, I just think we need independent comment. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all believe in the sanctity of Wikipedia staying fact based and topical. I'm in journalism, and I can only assume Reportersteven is as well. Nothing in this entry is opinion based, and if percieved as such I urge the Wikipedia community to conform it to standards. Obviously I am fairly bias in this dispute, but I do believe that I have provided far more information than many entries on the site, and see no reason it should not be included. AlistairBooya (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the recent addition regarding Vote Counting on this AfD. I fully agree with this notice. I stand behind this addition to Wikipedia for historical and social impact. I, nor anyone involved, wishes to make this a popularity contest. In regards to the Consensus, I am still not completely aware of how this AfD is decided. I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first large post creation. The facts are accurate, but does my short history and requests in various mediums for advice on the subject make my opinion less respected? AlistairBooya (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of this discussion nothing has been accomplished. Both PageantUpdater and I are unable to be counted as we both have personal reasons as to why it should or should not be included. Reportersteven and PhilKnight are attached to the discussion in one way or another whether asked specifically or influenced via another site asking for advice, and DGG is clearly anti-pageant despite the facts. I do not mean to beat a dead horse, but no reasonable complaint has been made towards this articles deletion beyond deeply concise Google searches aimed toward specific news organizations and meant to exclude results. Once again I request an official judgement from a Wikipedia moderator with ample reasoning as to why it should not belong, including the amount of resources and specific organizations needing to be cited from, or this AfD should be removed for invalid placement. AlistairBooya (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, BOTH are opinions count, you show once again that you have no understanding of Wikipedia and that is why I appealed to a couple of Wikipedians I was last in contact with more than a year ago to comment on this case. Their opinions should not be counted as prejudiced in any way, you can see for yourself that I clearly said that I was happy to be found wrong. DGG is not anti-pageant he is simply following Wikipedia's notability rules, and I am hoping that as this discussion comes to a close in a few days other independent Wikipedian's will also comment. You simply continue to show a lack of understanding for Wikipedia's inclusion/notability policies and I am sick of trying to explain them to you. I'm just darn frustrated! PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thoroughly appreciate your interest in maintaining the standards as set by Wikipedia, and have not contested that I am not aware of the inner workings of Wikipedia. All I hope for in this review process is justifiable evidence as to why this entry is invalid despite numerous references cited. All of this not to be influenced by personal opinion of area affected, importance of such events, nor personal history. I have no personal opinion toward you nor am I discounting your statements. I merely feel as if the evidence is provided and the citations have been made albeit without finalized formatting.AlistairBooya (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my argument still stands. that gnews search does not look like indepth coverage to me. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to an argument I received outside of this venue, Miss Grays Harbor is a blanket term for each of these individual contestants, all of which have their own Google Search entries. In the same vein as the argument put forward PageantUpdater regarding his entries of the Miss America's Outstanding Teen entries being consolidated into one page, so be it this information. At this moment there are only a handful of Miss Grays Harbor contestants worthy of their own Wikipedia entry, but as a whole they provide far more entries than alleged. Just something to think about as we await an official verdict. AlistairBooya (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence for notability. I have looked at the Google news search linked above. It consists mostly of very brief mentions, run-of-the-mill coverage in local news coverage, etc. For example, we have items about other contests in which it is mentioned that Miss Grays Harbor was a runner up, and that is all. Many of the 23 hits are mirrors of one another: thus we have 5 copies of one article, complete with the misprint "daugh ter" in all 5. Exactly similar remarks apply to the citations given in the article. Among the arguments for "keep" above we have "I hope to continue populating the regional pageant information as to garner more interest for these scholarship programs": this is an announcement that the purpose is to use Wikipedia for promotion, not an explanation of why the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Truly sorry, because I hate to remove something that so much work has been put into, but it looks like this is a very minor contest. A side note, the articles for the contestants that aren't red links are mostly mislinked, with humorous effect:
    • Surely Kristin Nelson, 1992, didn't win the award at the age of 47, and being a mother of 4 ... and yet she's the most likely one.
    • Megan Parker, 1988, seems to be a fictional character.
    • However Connie Murphy, 1980, probably... wins the tiara... among those who pretty clearly didn't win the tiara... First, he's a man. Or rather, was a man. Because, second, in 1980, he was dead for 35 years. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, GRuban! I wondered about those links but didn't follow them - I can see I missed a good laugh! --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This local pageant doesn't even come close to being notable enough for Wikipedia. Here's a different approach: instead of arguing about obscure Google archives, take a look at what articles actualy exist on Wikipedia. I could find NO articles about any pageant below the state level. None. There is no article for Miss Chicago, or Miss San Francisco, or Miss Los Angeles, or Miss Miami - basically nothing below the state level qualifies as notable by Wikipedia standards. That should make it crystal clear that this small local pageant does not belong here, despite all the author's hard work. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was asked by the nominator to participate in this debate. I am impressed with the amount of work put into the article. It's quality just five days after creation is genuinely impressive and the main contributor, AlistairBooya deserves significant kudos for his/her efforts. Unfortunately, I have to support the article's deletion. As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on specific guidelines on notability of beauty contests, so we have to apply the general notability guidelines of WP:NOTABILITY. In the summary there we read that a topic is notable if it "has been noticed by the world at large". To do demonstrate that this is the case, such a topic needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." In researching this nomination, I have not been able to find evidence of "significant coverage". The event is mentioned only a few times in online news searchs and, even then, often only in passing (i.e. mentioned in an article that is substantially about something else). The notability guideline says that it is the topic and not the article's content that determines notability. Often, in debating deletion, we are dealing with an article that is poorly written, underdeveloped or unreferenced and the temptation is to lean towards delete because of the lack of development in the article. This is a rare case of the author's creator putting in a lot of good work, which makes arguing deletion rather painful. Accordingly, I have given this one extra thought, but in the end, we have to abide by consensus policy and, if I apply the policy ojectively, I cannot but support the nomination. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'speedy keep as a blatantly disruptive nomination. Blueboy96 23:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nodar Kumaritashvili

Non-notable person who died. An article called "Death of Nodar Kumaritashvili" might be ok but not this article. Revenge No (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Santana

Oscar Santana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This radio personality lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news searches under stage name and real name bring up only primary sources. Only ref #3 in the article mentions him and only in a single sentence from an article where neither he nor the show is the subject of the article. Other refs are primary sources such as radio stations where he was employeed at some point. RadioFan (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Bones, Tracer of Missing Pets

Sherlock Bones, Tracer of Missing Pets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been tagged for notability for two years. It's a book from an author on which we do not have an article (link is to a dab page, and the only entry on the author is to this book).

The links on google, other than the author site (I think), are as far as I can see just listings to purchase the book. I don't see any independent reviews. Shadowjams (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nope,its a selected list, not a directory liker Books in Print. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Wit

The Beatles Wit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be Original Research. ttonyb (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There has been extensive discussion on this article being created at Talk:The Beatles#New Article??. —Akrabbimtalk 22:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not made clear where in the article there is original research; the article largely consists of cited comments by The Beatles themselves, George Martin and well known Beatle commentators - Mark Lewisohn and Philip Norman. The idea for the article came from a remark by George Harrison. Apepper (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources are cited, but see WP:Synthesis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that the article is written to advance an opinion - other than I was surprised that the main Beatles article didn't mention how the Beatles wit advanced their career. In fact, I've been surprised at how influential it's been; I'd remembered George Harrison saying that the Beatles were genuinely funny and that he thought it was a big part of the Beatles "thing", but I didn't realise how much it effected their chance of getting a contract, the amount of press coverage they received, who directed their films. It was suggested when the article was first proposed that it be incorporated into the main article - I'd be happy with that, although the article is quite long as it is... Apepper (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I've read the reasons for proposed deletion now; I disagree that the Beatles' Wit is unencyclopedic as a topic - I think the quotations in the article, particularly from Georges Harrison & Martin and Ringo, make it clear that their wit was unusual; it affected whether they were offered a recording contract by Martin - he has repeatedly said in interview that it was the Beatles wit and charisma that he thought would sell the band, not the music which, as he says, at that stage wasn't that impressive. Conversely, it made the band respect Martin because he'd worked with their comedy heroes. It changed the approach of the American press and affected the selection of Richard Lester as the director of the first Beatles' film. Apepper (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move applicable content to Wikiquote Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG and there is no indication of how it might RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through the WP:GN; Significant coverage; there are clearly a large number of books about The Beatles and most of them mention The Beatles wit. The majority of contemporary press articles are orientated towards witty remarks made by the band.
    Reliable; all the sources are widely published and owned.
    Secondary Sources; Although The Beatles' Anthology is used to show what the band themselves thought of the importance of wit to their career, most of the sources are third party.
    Independent of the Subject; as with the above, although George Martin's work might be considered non-independent, why would he lie about such a thing? Norman Smith corroborates the story.
    Presumed; hopefully I established reliable sources for the subject being suitable.Apepper (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, following up on my comment above. Regardless of Apepper's comments about the Beatles' wit meeting GNG, it doesn't do so independently of coverage of the Beatles, and it's an ancillary trait, however much it may have been remarked on. I guess one way to look at it is that a Wikipedia article shouldn't make a case; it shouldn't have an underlying thesis. This article seems to have a thesis behind it: it's an analysis, however well sourced it is, written to support the thesis that the Beatles' wit had a lot to do with their success. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Freak Patrol

Clean Freak Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged for notability for two years now. It is an ad campaign in Canada that also appears to manufacture or distribute hand sanitizers.

I think the relevant question is whether or not these campaigns, or manufacturers, meet GNG. There are social media portals for this organization, but they appear to be primary sources. The news sources I'm seeing are mostly press releases or company write ups. I haven't found any third party sources. I'm sure there are a few, but I'm not confident those indicate notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Vlack

Robert Vlack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Firstly, it's been an unsourced BLP for 3 years, and untouched for the past 1.5 years. Second, he lacks notability - primary notability claim ("was awarded the Fred Bowman Literary Award by the Canadian Numismatic Research Society") isn't much to speak of. This is the only article to mention the award, and there's no evidence that the society itself is very noteworthy, thus their award cannot be considered anything near "prestigious". I'm unable to find proper sourcing for him (GBooks, GNews, etc.) so it should not be kept per BLP unless sources can be located. JamieS93❤ 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Although I sympathise with some of those arguing for keep,the fact is that Wikipedia has fairly specific guidelines for what to includearticles on: consensus among those who based their arguments on such guidelines were that they are not met in this case (and that 'last squad to be completely killed'does not in itself confer notabilty). I'm happy to userfy this for work into one of the other articles suggested below; contact me on my talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Time

Flight Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not proud of this nom, but I don't think that this article meets the notability requirements, as well as vioalting WP:NOTMEMORIAL (the main source, or rather only source, is memorial enough). There is only one source regarding the incident in question, and it's about as close to hardly third-party; the remainder are merely short bios and I am unable to find any other references. There were thousands upon thousands of skirmishes and firefights in the Vietnam War, and I don't see what makes this one notable above the rest or enough for an article. None of the six Marines seem to meet the notability requirements on thier own, either. There is also a WP:COI issue: The author claims to be a relative of one of the six Marines killed. At best, it could be merged into 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appreciate Bahamut0013 problem with nomination but (WP:DUCK) it looks just like a memorial page. No indication that this action was any more notable then any other deaths in Vietnam, doesnt appear to be notable enough to be mentioned at 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient information to justify a full article for the six marines; the page would do better merged into the unit the served with. As a side not here, I note for the record that the article article Herbert Lang resided at the page Flight Time until the it was moved to Herbert "Flight Time" Lang to make way for this newer article. Closing admins may wish to consider returning Herbert to his original location if the afd closes as delete. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lets give the editor time to clean it up.. lets tell him our concerns ..this deleting of articles without proper time for corrections is not proper and is very inconsiderate to all this new editors that have taken the time to make them!!..it reads like a momorial then lets tell him that so he can fix it..no way a new editor will ever know all the guidelines (over 2000 pages of them)...Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author surely thought it was ready after working on it in his sandbox for a few days and then requesting for it to be moved to mainspace. Having been around since July, I think he should have enough of a grasp on our policies and guidelines to be expected to understand one of the most important: Notability. And in any case, that's not something time or more editing can fix. He really can't do anything to make the event or people more notable. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is history "the LAST full recon team to be totaly wiped out all at once "the last team in the whole war" if thats not historicl the what is ? Mlpearc (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a book "Never Without Heroes" by Lawerencw C Vetter Mlpearc (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a memorial! This is a part of USA history. the vietnam war was a signaficate part of USA history, this article is about a Whole Team of recon marines to die, the team died which wiped out the 3rd recon. Thank you fellow americans and all the people/teams who gave thier lives for us, if it was'nt for them, do you think we would be able do "wiki" and have the freedom we have?! thank you connie keever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.104.45 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
((Foot note)) the book "Never Without Heroes" by Lawrence C. Vetter Jr. ISBN#0-8041-0807-2 Chapter 12 page 292 paragraph 3 states "Flight Time- Marines Barnitz, Buck,O'Conner, Pearcy, Skaggs, and Wellman-was the last team to be totally lost by the battalion"Mlpearc (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(foot note) see this page[[3]] subsection 10"flight time" Mlpearc (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I saw the aforementioned discussion prior to making my !vote one declassified document does not wp:notability make. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 18:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the big problem is the age of most people commenting here (i cant ask age) but anyone here even alive to see this news story ???..I think there just not old enough to remember this....I have contacted the 3 main news organizations in the USA to get copies of the original TV report on this indecent. From what i can find it was headline new for that week...Buzzzsherman ([[User talk:|talk]]) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really relevant to the notability of the article at all. WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events) demonstrate that news coverage doesn't necessarily equate to notability either: simply because the news covered it doesn't mean it rates an article. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a sad event for the families of the men killed but it lacks sources that would demonstate notability beyond their personal circles (both military and familial). It the event is a part of the Battalion lore, then perhaps it belongs there, but it is not sufficient in significance for its own article. Bielle (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Buzzzsherman: if we do not know of the event because of our age (and that would certainly not be true in my case) it could be because, along with many, many events in every country across the world, it was important in the US for a week WP:Recentism, and not more. Bielle (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point!! as you can tell this is a heated debate with emotions running high...just i cant believe that we are even talking about deleting this..Wiki has more then enough space and should include all human knowledge and history!!! ...I have decided that i am going to be re-do this article..when i get more info on the matter..I have bought the book ..New york times has a periodical from the news report that i am getting a copy of. I will be redoing the article with the main back drop being that after this indecent platoon deployment changed for the rest of the war!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU SIR.Mlpearc (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Buzzzsherman again: redoing the article is fine if you have sources that make it a notable event. However, stating "I will be redoing the article with the main back drop being that after this indecent platoon deployment changed for the rest of the war," is not enough unless there is evidence -not just your view- that links these deaths causally (rather than just temporally) with altered platoon deployment tactics. You may want to look at Post hoc ergo propter hoc or even Correlation does not imply causation. Bielle (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know ...i have been here long time..made many articles my latest one... i don't normally get involved in this type of thing..in fact this is my second Vote on this type of thing...I offer my knowledge on the wiki help page and from that i have noticed that in the past few months new editors keep getting there work deleted (I mean like 60percent) so i decided i will help this people with copy edits.. adding refs ..Votes...and now looks like making the dame article my self so it will pass this USER made polices. Anyways i hope no one takes anything personal here i am just upset that new editors do not get the help they once did..in fact i would say the old wiki users don't even what new users here...making 2000 polices that would take an editor a year to read is not helping!!..how is it possible tell me!!!...Mlpearc has been here helping editing for some time..he takes a leap and makes his first article and BANG 5 tags hit it in 24hrs including Speedy delete when hes still in the process of adding refs ..come on!! made someone could tell him the problem or even better yet actually help improve the article ..not just tag it and move to tag the next 50 article that look a bit off!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Now there are two sources, but I'm still not convinced that it proves notability. Like I said before, I don't think the notability issue is something that can be overcome with more editing or time, it's a fundamental issue with the topic not being right for a Wikipedia article. We all were newbies and most of us have had some type of trial by fire at some time, but most of us have learned from it and improved our editing.
Given the number of anons and SPAs that have popped up to this discussion and to harass me on my talk page, I think this was unhelpfully posted on some kind of message board somehwere. If you have attempted to meddle in this way, please admit it. If you have come here to harass me for my listing this, I recommend you go do something more constructive. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per not a memorial, not news and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note that the 'sources' are about a 'memorial', 'remembering' and 'recollections'. This event was significant to the families, but is not a significant event in the war. The 'last' aspect is mere trivia. People die in wars, by the millions; most are quite ordinary and are soon forgotten. Such things are not appropriate here. Cover the wars, their causes, the battles, mistakes, and lessons. Jack Merridew 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what Heros do we delete that are already here ?Mlpearc (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we start with Audie Murphy Mlpearc (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Audie Murphy seems notable, as do Erwin Rommel and Sergeant York. It's poor form to badger people with pointy suggestions. Jack Merridew 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Also adds our systematic bias. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jack Merridew. Reyk YO! 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per not a memorial. The article, as it currently stands, does not show any notability other than these men died in Vietnam. While their deaths were tragic and I am sure they acted honorably and heroic until the end it still does not pass the reasonable man test in "my opinion."--Looper5920 (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. Although five editors have argued above for "keep" not one of them has actually argued that there is significant coverage. Instead we get "if thats not historicl the what is", "These Marines and Corpsman paid the ultimate price for freedom, are we so in need of server space to forget them", "Wiki has more then enough space and should include all human knowledge and history", and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no evidence of the notability of this subject. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Rather than rush simply to dispose of the hard work of yet another honourably committed Wikipedia editor, mightn't it be appropriate to suggest alternative, more constructive solutions? These deaths were significant, and the work that has been done on the article is significant. How about working up an article on Hill 471, for example, or on the issue of body recovery in Vietnam and elsewhere? The voices of rigour bellowing "no notability" fail to notice their former fellow-enthusiasts slipping quietly away to more rewarding activity elsewhere. Opbeith (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already have voiced an alternative suggestion. While I would applaud the idea of creating a new article regading body recovery/graves registration (perhaps Prisoner of War and Missing in Action Affairs?), I don't think it would help this one. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Opbeith and ukexpat I would be glad to move it "back" to my user space and see where we can go with it. This gladens my heart, because I really do love Wikipedia. I know there were some things thrown back and forth, Please let me know whats decided ! Mlpearc (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal diseases

List of fatal diseases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per rationale on article's talk page: essentially that it appears to be impossible to create a satisfactory set of criteria for inclusion. Whether a disease is fatal or not depends hugely on individual factors, and whether or not it is treated, as even very minor diseases can cause death in people with immunodeficiencies. A proposal was made to include only diseases with 100% mortality, although it appears that this would be very difficult to create, largely because most if not all diseases have at least some survivors. There is also a difference between incurable and fatal.Jhbuk (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I support keeping the article, and then, as I now realize that my proposal to include only diseases with 100% mortality rates was not practical, following the sources, as DigitalC (talk · contribs) suggested.This meaning that, for example, if a source says that chrnic obstructive pulmonary disease can be fatal (which it is), including it in the article. What do you think of that idea? Immunize (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't addressed the criticism: most diseases can cause death in the right circumstances. Also, if we are having trouble deciding upon what is and is not a fatal disease, then the sources may have different criteria as well. Jhbuk (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and discussion on article's talk page, in which I participated. ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - This is a problematic criteria for inclusion for all of the reasons described above and on the talk page discussion. I have one question: are there any similar lists in the medical literature, or similar definitions of "fatal disease", other than a disease that happens to kill you? Even if the criterion's locked down tightly, it will be arbitrary and misleading unless there is some professional consensus linked to that criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entry criteria for this list aren't defined and there seems to be a problem coming up with them. Restricting it to "is always fatal if left untreated" wouldn't be helpful as it would include easily treatable diseases while leaving out those with much higher mortality rates. I don't believe you will find a definition that keeps the list a manageable or useful size without imposing some arbitrary limit that doesn't square with the reader's expection. Colin°Talk 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Difficult, if not impossible, to adequately define inclusion/exclusion criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Untenably arbitrary list. Even a flu can be fatal. Even advanced brain cancer can be nonfatal! The list lacks the critical element of verifiability and therefore must be deleted.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explain. Looking at the list, the meaning is "inevitably or almost inevitably fatal", which is true for all of the ones listed . There are good sources for each of them in the article. (the possibility that someone might die of something else first is irrelevant) DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but is there a good source for the act of classifying diseases according to whether or not they are fatal? We need a source that makes the entire subject notable, not a series of sources that verifies individual entries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Organisations such as the World Health Organisation routinely publish tables of diseases showing the numbers of deaths attributed to them in a given year. We can base our list on mortality statistics of this sort. It might be sensible to consolidate this as a column in a master list of diseases but this is not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem remains with selection unless it is an article about diseases which, with or without treatment, irrespective of the individual circumstances will always cause death. This will result in a sublist of List of incurable diseases, so points made in that AfD may also apply here, such as what a disease is. The description is more acceptable for unequivocal cases such as CJD, but anywhere else will have some caveat: rabies can often be cured if treated early enough, for example. Colonel Warden, can you expand on how WHO stats could help? Jhbuk (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHO statistics help by providing good sources for this notable topic. They select diseases which kill significant numbers of people each year such as tuberculosis which kills over a million. That there are survivors from this disease is unimportant - it is the deaths which matter. Obscure or insignificant diseases may be omitted per WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY. It seems a simple matter of editing not deletion per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current editors of the article seem to have chosen "invariably fatal, if untreated". You've picked "kills a significant number of people each year", which actually rules out pretty much all of the current list, which apart from rabies are very rare diseases. Perhaps an ordered list of the top 50 biggest killer diseases would be interesting and could use WHO stats. As it is, based on the current article title, this list is pointless. I do wish folk would not essentially vote "Keep -- as long as the name is changed, the list-entry rules are changed and the entire content is changed". Colin°Talk 09:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is our explicit editing policy to build upon an unsatisfactory start and develop it into something better. 99% of our articles have yet to reach a good level. Deletion is only for hopeless cases which this is not. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate which part of this article you would keep? This is a hopeless case. That it has inspired you to consider a different list is pretty irrelevant. Colin°Talk 09:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I would keep the title in the form of a redirect to List of diseases, where we may consolidate such information. Per our deletion policy, such alternatives to deletion should be considered before this last resort. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"where we may consolidate such information". So you're going to help turn that huge to-do list into a source of mortality information for all the world's diseases? The concept of "fatal disease" is broken: it is not a boolean attribute of a disease. Some diseases have mortality rates but such rates are only collected for a very tiny minority of diseases (because it is very hard to establish cause and effect -- people die of symptoms, not diseases). Other diseases are only associated with an increase in mortality. Our deletion policy only suggest a redirect if one were to be "useful". The title (and hence any redirect) is not useful. Should List of diseases contain mortality information at some point in the future, anyone looking for it would find it there without the aid of a misguided redirect. Colin°Talk 12:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel, your source supports a List of causes of death by rate, which already exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? And btw, fixing redlinks caused by sloppy editing is not insignificant. Graham Colm (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Tiderolls's contributions to the article were, according to the edit summary, "fixing markup". IMO this is not a significant edit, as he/she did not add content to the article. Immunize (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see how we can define meaningful and universal inclusion criteria for this list. It is of no use as a redirect. PDCook (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it seems like "dead" would be easy enough to identify, no reasonable definition for "diseases that cause death" will ever exist. There are hundreds of conditions that might, and might not, qualify as "fatal diseases", depending on resources, treatment, and comorbidities. There's no evidence that any reliable source finds this to be a particularly important characteristic for classifying diseases; creating this list is essentially WP:Original research. "Disease", in particular, is a complicating factor, since several of the most significant causes of death are not properly "diseases" (e.g., trauma). Do you exclude tobacco use, which kills millions each year, but include a genetic disorder whose effect on lifespan can only be determined through careful statistical analysis of the affected population? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much of a sliding scale, I think, and depends on medical technology of the day, etc. I don't like these poorly specified lists. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is too prone to original research. How to we define a fatal disease? Ones which commonly cause death, sometimes cause death or rarely cause death etc? Do we just restrict it to common diseases or do we just let it grow to thousands and thousands and thousands of diseases?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list such as List of diseases by mortality rate would be appropriate; as stated by many above, there is no clear definition as to what makes a disease "fatal" and therefore no standard for what diseases are and are not included in the list. –Grondemar 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could potentially include every disease / condition. We already have List of preventable causes of death and List of causes of death by rate. Both much better places to put ones efforts.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hollywood Undead. JohnCD (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce (singer)

Deuce (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer for a band (that meets WP:BAND) but is not independently notable himself. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which "updates" (with verifiable references from reliable sources, of course) show that this artists meets any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO? TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grimvenom

Grimvenom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although there's a claim of importance here (radio airplay), a google search for this artist, the single, or his record company doesn't come up with independent, reliable sources that show notability. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Songs B-Sides EP

Swan Songs B-Sides EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable EP with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. no consensus for deletion whatsoever JForget 01:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Death (American band)

Black Death (American band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band not notable for anything except being black. May fail Wikipedia:Notability (music). Duribald (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep-I'm not really a fan of this band, but I made an article for them because they are notable. They have an Allmusic bio and they were mentioned in Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal. Though those two sources are most likely all the sources you could find on this group's existence. RG (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or merge. It would be nice to have specific info from the book cited in the article as well (did it just name the band or actually say something about it?). This article apparently cannot be expanded, but the idea that they are the first all African American metal band is of some historical note and I think it's probably worth keeping if only for that reason. An equally palatable option would be to turn this into a redirect and merge the content to one of our articles on heavy metal and its history/sub-genres, though I'm not sure what the target for the merge would be. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On page 206 Christe says "In Cleveland, Ohio, a revered all-black power metal band crushed posers under the tongue-in-cheek name Black Death." It's featured on his big section on race in metal. The only other thing I could find on this group was an article about their drummer's death on metalunderground.com RG (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pickup theory

Pickup theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a how to resource. Individual methods should be merge to the respective methods schemes, and any common methodology should be merged to Pickup artist or Seduction community. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus (comedian)

Marcus (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable stand-up comedian, whose only IMDB credit is a reality show that he lost. Flunks WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE. Six footnotes in article, one is to Twitter, two are to a podcast, one is to an ad, one is Deseret News coverage of his reality show appearance, and one is a newspaper story that he guest-judged a karaoke competition at a Knoxville bar. THF (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 98.202.34.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep (withdrawn- see new vote below) Basic notability requirements that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Marucs is the subject of many secondary sources-- the article should not be deleted just because the references in the article do not include all reliable sources on the subject. There are dozens of reliable sources saying he came in 2nd on Last Comic Standing or was participating in the show or LCS tour, but it seems redundant to have so many multiple sources confirming the same fact. (If you need me to list them here I will do so, but just peruse the first few pages of google results for "last comic standing marcus"-- and yes i know the google test isn't reliable, but you will find sources for news stories from newspapers and tv news stories covering this) He came in 2nd (hardly losing) on a tv show with several million viewers each week. I know this is kind of the definition of the pokemon test, but all other contestants form this season have pages and are notable for their articles written about them appearing on the show-- Marcus meets that definition as well. His current career includes tours of comedy clubs around the country and is popular on the college circuit (see his myspace page for current schedule-- hardly a low grade comedian-- eg, he is headlining a major club in Shreveport for 4 nights next month! He is also a regular contributor to major sites like FunnyorDie.com and a regular contributor to Geek Show Podcast, which has garnered enough media attention to merit inclusion. He also has thousands of followers and fans on Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter. It should also be noted that this article was much more substantive and better sourced one month ago, but much of the info was blanked out by an administrator and has been the subject of edit wars since then, with the inability to restore much of the info because of this. The only reason this got noted for deletion because of a dispute over the subject's last name. The article needs rewriting and more sources, not deletion. Whillice (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The resume "regular contributor to FunnyorDie.com and a local Utah podcast, plus thousands of fans on Myspace, and he's playing at a club in Shreveport" is self-refuting on the question of notability. (Too, only 598 fans on Facebook, half as many as Moxie X Cathedra. Who? Exactly.) I took your suggestion to google Marcus, and found no RS about Marcus, as opposed to about the show, and many of the links were unsurprisingly not about this Marcus, who is far from famous enough to get away with having a single name. (He did have eight attendees at a Facebook event at a comedy club, though.) Any press coverage of his appearance on Last Comic Standing -- a show that, unlike American Idol, has yet to launch a single career for any of its contestants -- can be handled in the article related to that show. Right now, there are literally zero reliable secondary sources about any biographical details, and the subject of the article claims that the one newspaper that covered even minor biographical details, such as his last name, did so inaccurately. THF (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Both Ralphie May and Rich Vos got started on Last Comic Standing. Both have had successful careers. Others, such as ANT and Iliza Schlesinger have had bumps to their careers, while not having the same exposure as Ralphie and Vos, but regularly appear on shows like The Soup or Best Week Ever.
Also, this article includes 2 sources that are honest to God newspapers, the Deseret News and the Salt Lake City Weekly and one from a tv newscast from KSL-TV.
This doesn't negate many of your arguments and I think I have to agree you are correct in many cases. As you said, the resume I stated is self-defeating: notability is essentially mentions by reliable sources. Article needs more of these. Whillice (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 70.112.118.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Appeal - It looks like i am on the wrong side of this argument, or at least outnumbered, despite my contentions that wikipedia policy is on my side- contentions that no one has made substantive arguments against, I might add. As compromise, and in deference to the vandalism and edit war scorched earth campaign this article has been subjected to over the past months, please allow me and others to find better reliable sources and rewrite. Today is literally the first day ever this has been nominated for deletion with no warning to the possibility of this via talk page or tab and I'm not sure if I can really do t justice over the next week alone. Give this a month to rewrite? Whillice (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added some new links and removed contentious ones to give you an idea of where this is going. Whillice (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Whillice's news sources seem to amount to self-published data from Pegasusnews (a community news site where anybody can post), and a press release by NBC detailing his show appearance. I applaud Whillice for trying, but if this is the best a concentrated good faith effort can do, the subject is clearly NN. RayTalk 22:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article includes sources from 2 newspapers, 1 tv newscast. I was unaware Pegasus News was self-publishing, or else would've searched further for a better source. However, please look at it more closely as a source: http://www.pegasusnews.com/pressroom/?refscroll=1216 It has received praise from the Dallas Business Journal and USC's Annenberg School of Journalism. While the content is user-generated (so is wikipedia, I might add), there is a great deal of editorial control through a complex mathematical system which excludes the least relevant results. However, will look for a less controversial source as soon as I have time. Whillice (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you genuinely feel the article can be improved and meets our WP:Notability requirements, feel free to ask for it to be userfied if it is deleted (which it looks like it will be). However bear in mind BLP applies to all of wikipedia so you should not ask for it to be userfied unless you genuinely believe you can improve it sufficiently to move back to main space sometime in the near future (i.e. in a few months). As has been mentioned, you will need to find sources which discuss him in detail, rather then just mentioning he was on some TV show once. BTW the 'so is wikipedia, I might add' doesn't help your argument since wikipedia is most definitely not a WP:RS as clearly specified in many places, not even close and the fact that we are user-generated is one of the many reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice and the correction. I do believe this can meet notability per WP:BIO as someone who has made s specific, important contribution to their field, specifically by the fact that Marcus is recognized as one of the most talented impressionists working today [citation needed] -- I kid, of course about the tag. That's the problem. Not enough time to go to Lexis-Nexis and do some heavy research on this topic and find reliable sources which back claims like that up.
I know this isn't EXACTLY the same, but one of the other portions of WP:BIO and WP:ENT is winning a major award. I noticed within the guidelines under WP:ENT and its subsection WP:PORNSTAR that the fact that someone was ever named a Playboy Playmate is reason enough to be considered notable. Is being a finalist for a show like Last Comic Standing similar? I know THF thinks the entire show is relatively non-notable, as it has failed to be a platform to launch someone who rises to the level of media prominence of a Dane Cook or Dave Chappelle (or in his mind, I guess, a Kelly Clarkson or Clay Aiken). But in collecting encyclopedic knowledge about standup comedians, are we only to include those who rise to cultural salience among the likes of Seinfeld, Cosby, Kinnison, and Pryor? Notability should be proven by published sources, yes? That's where we should draw the line, following also BIO, etc.
Or are those who have been selected as among the 12 best in their peer group for a network TV showcase be considered to have been given a major enough award anyway among their peer group, the same as 12 new Playmates are chosen every year? Certainly there are Playboy Playmates who have never done another notable thing in their lives other than that, and there are no other sourced media out there for their accomplishments or life before or after, but they are explicitly guaranteed notability because of the honor that itself is. Please don't misunderstand this, I'm not not trying to make a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, I'm trying to make a logic argument. As long as the content itself is not crufty and well-sourced, should it stand? Comments? Whillice (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Whillice (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence in inserting the weakly cited name is the only reason this article is at AFD in the first place. Well, rather the spark that attracted the attention that has ultimately brought us here today. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. R. Rao

A. R. Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A. Ramachandra Rao a.k.a A. R. Rao from the Indian Statistical Institute, India fails to pass WP:PROF, hence not notable -sorry [4] kaeiou (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I did the search myself with "graph" and got a GS h index of around 10: not too impressive. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longbourn's Unexpected Matchmaker

Longbourn's Unexpected Matchmaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a new rework of Pride and Prejudice. The article gives publication date as 15 April 2010, but from Google Books it seems there was a first edition last year. It appears to be self-published, at least the website of the publisher, Rhemalda Publishing, shows that this is the only book they have published; the only other book listed there, The Truth About Mrs. Bennet (coming soon), is presumably a sequel. References to the author's web-site and Amazon link a number of on-line and blog-type reader reviews, but there is no indication that it is notable to the standard of WP:Notability (books). PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sphatik

Sphatik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is either an advert for some mystical product or an invitation to join a Yahoo! group, or both. In any case, the finishing "Yours Yogically, Shreeram Balijepalli" makes it considerably less than an encyclopaedia article. Emeraude (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinlo

Dinlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and after some searching I don't see how this could be turned into an article. I'll be happy if someone shows that I'm wrong. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I would contest the assertion in the article that "it [dinlo] is spoken by many people in the United Kingdom". Not in my experience it isn't. May be a suitable candidate for sending to a Romani Wiktionary (but not an English Wiktionary or we'll all be dinlo). Belated signature Emeraude (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Its not got enough notability for us, and is unlikely to be satisfactorily referenced any time. However, it is a word thats used in the UK, I heard it myself when I was in Gloucestershire, so it might be suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree with Dylanfromthenorth, heard it used in Kent. Opbeith (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure what you heard wasn't "diddlo" (unsure of spelling), quite common here in South Yorskhire? Emeraude (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite sure. There's a lot of romany-descended people in Gloucestershire (particularly Forest of Dean area), I'd hazard a guess that its spread from them into wider usage. Whether there would be enough information and history behind the word for a Wikipedia article I don't know, but Wiktionary might be a possible venue. Similar to yourself though, I'm unsure whether "dinlo" is an accurate spelling". Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is clear, and if this decision is inconsistent with that for Kohana, that is the way AfD works. I looked at the last source added by Ekerazha to see if it might justify a last-minute reprieve to relisting; but it only lists Yii among over 100 applications nominated for awards. JohnCD (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yii

Yii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AfDs for this article:

Yii Framework was deleted twice for the lack of notability. Same problem here: yet another web php framework. Peni (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Published on the php|architect magazine. Ekerazha (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (GregJackP (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and TIRED about this situation, this article and Kohana were both deleted, Kohana was created again and survived the new deletion request (opened by me) with no new arguments, just more fans who wanted to "keep" it. Please note Yii also has more hits on Google than Kohana (and a written book on Yii will be out soon). If you delete this article while keeping the other one, you can trust me I'll ignore the Kohana deletion discussion and I'll delete that article with my hands, I'm TIRED of this lack of consistency. Ekerazha (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources pass the muster for WP:GNG. That Kohana got closed as "no consensus" by an admin exhausted by the walls of text and irrelevant links posted is irrelevant to this discussion. Pcap ping 19:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Irrelevant" was a good reason to delete the article... and this is very relevant as this is the same situation. Ekerazha (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the php|architect magazine does pass WP:GNG ("Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media"). Ekerazha (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The php|architect magazine source (Google cache) to which Ekerazha refers is insufficient in that the coverage is not the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG:
Text about Yii in the php
architect magazine source
Yii: Flex Your Flash by Jeff Winesett

Adding a little Flash to applications is a common approach web developers take as they strive to meet today’s buzzword compliance. Maximizing interoperability and data exchange by leveraging web Services to allow application-to-application communication has revolutionized the Web business model. It’s hard to imagine the Internet today without the Web service APIs of, among many others, Google, Yahoo and Amazon. This article shows how to easily accomplish both of these modern Web development demands by using the extremely powerful and light-weight PHP framework, Yii.

The arguments presented by Ekerazha for retaining the article violate Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, such as WP:GOOGLEHITS. If none of the Google hits for Yii are reliable sources, none of them can be used to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web). The argument for keeping Yii because Kohana was not deleted is invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; furthermore, the AfD for Kohana was closed as "no consensus" which means that the article can be renominated later if notability concerns have not been rectified. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, that's just the toc of the magazine. The actual magazine presumably has more coverage, but it costs money to download. Still just one source. We had a similar situation with FUDforum, but there someone paid to have a look the magazine issue. Pcap ping 10:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for correcting my erroneous assumption. Note to those wishing to retain the article: if you can provide a second nontrivial reliable source, I will support keeping this article. Cunard (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Keep): please note WP:GOOGLEHITS says "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is...". Well, it is, we have a significant coverage (where Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.) which also include:
  • The php|architect magazine (July 2009) that does pass WP:GNG.
  • Same magazine, another article, March 2009 [5], that does pass WP:GNG.
  • Also, it was showed at the big Devmarch Summit [6] and I think this is a second source.
Ekerazha (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Julia & Company. JForget 00:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Down (Sugar Samba)

Breaking Down (Sugar Samba) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Neither the album nor the artist corresponding to this song have articles. This stub has no references at all and a search on Google Web and Google Books reveals an insufficient amount of reliable information to justify an article here; the majority of existing sources only provides the artist's name and the ranking on the British charts. Neelix (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Closed early per IAR. Not only was AcademieIT the only substainial editor to the article and requested deletion, it also seems that this is a tie in to a hoax. Come on people... there were two perfectly good CSD criteria sitting in front of your face. There was no reason to keep this AFD open. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Poeti-Marentini e Valperga di Masino-Caluso Peyretti di Condove

Guido Poeti-Marentini e Valperga di Masino-Caluso Peyretti di Condove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Though this article was in compliance with Wikipedia's policies, descendants of the subject of the article asked for its immediate removal on this basis: 1. the right of privacy 2. they have no interest their father/grandfather is listed here or anywhere I agreed that they have a right to protect their story and name, and that this article must be put into consideration of removal, as an administrator denied the speedy deletion. I think nor I nor Wikipedia can stop them of the right to make their life private. AcademieIT (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This person is notable. If someone has a good reason to request its administrative deletion should contact the Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs)
  • Keepsee new comments below, although what I said here is still true as well. No valid reason to delete the article is presented. To make an extreme example, I'm sure John Wayne Gacy would like to see a lot of the content of his article removed as it reflects very badly on him, but if it is based on reliable sources there is no reason to remove it. How can their be any sort of violation of the right to privacy when the article is based on previously published material? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly!--Karljoos (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Previous attempts, such as the invalid CSD placed by the nominator against this article late yesterday, indicate that the nominator clearly has no idea about the rules for keeping / deleting something from the encyclopedia. To the best of my knowledge, the family and or descendants have no right to ask us to remove a page for any reason. If there are inaccuracies, I could understand it, but we have pages on here which people have attempted to remove before, via legal means. The subect is notable, and this article must stay. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, even if the person were still alive and wished it deleted, there would be no basis for doing so, as he is clearly notable, not borderline. Second, the survivors have no right to even contest it--works of reference could not exist if this were permitted. Possibly the descendants of Stalin might want his article removed also. Even if we did think it relevant, we would still need to ask whether all of the descendants want it removed: he apparently has many children and grandchildren, and it is quite rare for them all to agree on family privacy concerns. Beetlebrox is however not quite right by saying the existence of previous published sources prevents deletion--it optionally can for a living person who was borderline notable and requested it, , and it can for any living person under DONOHARM, if the matter falls under the limitations of that provision (minor derogatory information unrelated to notability , and not very widely publicised--neither of which apply here in the slightest). The only relevant BLP consideration, is that his children, if living, have the right to have the day but not the year of their birth removed, if they ask via OTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • The descendants want the photograph deleted and their names in the "issue" section... It was one of their reasons, arguing "privacy". If this is possible, I'm sure the rest of the article can stay. Otherwise, I'm sure they will contact the foundation. AcademieIT (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the photograph is in the public domain, as you well know since you uploaded it. Anyone can use it for anything they wish and there is frankly nothing his descendants can do about that. Removing the names of his offspring may have some merit, if they are not notable on their own there is now real reason for them all to be listed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture 'seemed' to be in public domain, but it isn't: it was included in a 1984 copyrighted booklet published in Italy privately that I've learnt off, which is credited to his eldest daughter and copyrighted. I saw this big picture hanging on a wall when I visited their luxurious villa in Italy and took a shot of it with my camera (with their permission). As far as I knew when uploading it to Commons was that it had not been copyrighted in any way. Now I know the contrary. I'm sure that if the picture is removed and the references to his issue, they won't have claims to attack the entry or Wikipedia. It's all about finding a peaceful solution that benefits Wikipedia, without having to delete the entry, of course, as everyone wants it to stay (including me) because it has merit. AcademieIT (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is notable, and the material well sourced and accurate, so there are no grounds for deletion. The only concern I have is that the image was taken "in the 1940s", which would possibly make it not freely licenced. Inductiveload (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a possible hoax unless somebody other than User:AcademieIT can verify that the sources cited support this article. While the family may exist, the individual is questionable: [10]. Following a complaint to OTRS from a German researcher indicating that this contributor was manufacturing fake articles under this name and User:Academie (Ticket:2009121810004629), a source check of some of his contributions failed. For instance, the now-deleted Louise Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld was sourced in part to 1975's I granduchi di Toscana della casa Asburgo-Lorena. Obscure, but an OTRS agent who had access checked it and found no mention of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld. She also found that the book only covered events up to 1859. According to that article, the subject lived from 1882-1957. Her parents were born in 1854 and 1856, respectively. Two articles by this contributor, that one and Prince Ferdinand Rainieri Habsburg-Lorraine, have been deleted as hoaxes by two separate administrators. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note in terms of verifiability that Max Vergara Poeti, by this contributor, has also been nominated by him under the claim that somebody disputes its inclusion (in that case, the subject himself), and that in investigating the notability of that individual DGG found that one of the works sourced to him is listed at WorldCat as by another author: "WorldCat includes nothing by the author, and none of the titles, except "Seis poemas de Robert Frost" for which they list another person as responsible, and give the date of publication as 1963 not 2002." (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Vergara Poeti). This raises further questions of credibility for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles mentioned by (talk) which were in fact deleted were the product of misleading sources, and that was how I recognized to both administrators and this can be checked in their talk pages. But they were never made in bad faith or with the express intention to "create hoaxes", as the Moonriddengirl is stressing. I assume all good faith in everyone, and this discussion is not envolving myself by this article which the descendants want eliminated, period. We're not discussing here things that had been already sorted out, or myself. That is not objective. AcademieIT (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is entirely objective to request that somebody other than you verify this information in the article's given sources, given indications that you have placed material that cannot be verified in the sources you have used. If the material is unverifiable or inaccurate, it does not belong here no matter the purpose of its creation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With due respect that is not the topic of this deletion debate. But, if it HELPS to delete the article ASAP, whatsoever the claim, then you're most welcomed. I wrote too, the article on Archduke Heinrich, and that had not problem at all, as I've contributed to many other articles. What I argue is that you just can't generalize a mistake trying to show me in bad faith to other members. I have the right to defend myself, and I don't have any other problems and will glad to see you on this debate, as your opinion counts a lot Moonriddengirl. AcademieIT (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of this debate is whether it is proper to retain this article. A number of people have argued that it is, and I would agree that it would be if the facts are verifiable. I think it is entirely germane to note that the facts may not be, in fact, verifiable. In terms of your other articles, I see that the facts have been challenged at Talk:Poeti-Marentini e Valperga di Masino as well, a challenge that you have twice blanked. (I have restored it. Even if you have removed that challenged material, talk pages are archives, and blanking the relevant comments of others on an article talk page is inappropriate.) You are certainly welcome to defend yourself, and I hope that somebody will be able to access the sources of this and your other articles to stand up in your defense. Lacking such independent verification, I believe that this article should be deleted as a possible hoax. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is starting to make me dizzy. The user who nominated the article now has said they want it kept. But maybe they misinterpreted/misrepresented the facts from the sources, and the photograph they claimed was public domain is actually a photo they took of another photo that is in fact private property. And the alleged privacy violation is the result of reprinting information that was originally published by the very people who are now claiming their privacy is being violated. Changing my vote to I don't know Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentioned went through a series of corrections made by other administrators and an editor on nobility entries. The article was corrected as what was dubious was deleted. Now, Moonriddengirl, you have restored the article to its original debate (when it was already corrected according to Wikipedia's guidelines and other members' suggestions), which I find inappropriate and abusive of your power. In the end, I will put that and every article I had written on consideration for deletion and resign from Wikipedia, because now things had got personal, it seems. The article's talk page was blanked as the subjects mentioned there were deleted, as there was no proof that they existed or that they were related to this family. It will be very confusing to leave such debate there, as no longer (or as before you restored the article to its original wrong references)those names were in the article. I'm delighted to see your own delight on tearing down all I've done, but for your own happiness, I will put all my articles on this deletion process, as I'm just fed up with all of it. I want all the entries I have written deleted on whatever is the charge (and you can rejoice in that) as I have no more to do with these debates. That's all. Very strong delete. AcademieIT (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you keeping score at home, that's one delete, one keep, and one very strong delete, all from the same user. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closed early per IAR. Not only was AcademieIT the only substainial editor to the article and requested deletion, it also seems that this is a tie in to a hoax. Come on people... there were two perfectly good CSD criteria sitting in front of your face. There was no reason to keep this AFD open. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Vergara Poeti

Max Vergara Poeti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)


  • Delete: despite this article met Wikipedia Policy, the subject of the article asked for its immediate removal, under the charges that his life has been private and his biography too. As the subject of this biography has not authorize it, he wants it to be deleted immediately. I agree as one must respect other people's wishes, and as the subject of the article has also asked for removal of other articles about him on internet. In the end, is his right of privacy and his claim is valid and true. I think this should be respected, despite the article was perfect and had no problem before. AcademieIT (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I don't think this person is notable enought to have an article here. There aren't enough sources and I doubt that a child can get a "degree in composition and musical aesthetics" from a major conservatoire. I don't think he has any right to control the information published about him that belongs to his public and professional activities (articles etc.). If HE wants to request the removal of his bio, he should contact the foundation directly.--Karljoos (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ???? Just some comments. (1) If he is notable, we decide if he merits an article, not him. (2) The use of the word "child" should not be taken to mean that he obtained these qualifications at age 6 or 10; it could be careless use of English by a non-English-speaking writer who simply meant he was young. (3) The article says that critics have described him as "one of the most precocious and original voices of his generation" which sounds pretty respectable to me. On the other hand, (4) The Fondation Princess Grace of which he is supposed to be Art Counselor does not mention him (the site's fault possibly). (5) Neither does the Fondazione Alice Asburgo Lorena website, though, interestingly they do have two Poeti-Marentini von Habsburg-Lothringens and a Poeti-Marentini. All very puzzling.
  • Delete Many US libraries have extensive collections of Latin American literature, and some do of Italian, yet WorldCat includes nothing by the author, and none of the titles, except "Seis poemas de Robert Frost" for which they list another person as responsible, and give the date of publication as 1963 not 2002. WP:Book sources includes no Colombian libraries, but it does include 3 Italian universities, and Karlsruhe Union Catalog includes the National Library of Italy: none of the 4 include any works of his. And, more definitively, The National Library of Columbia indeed does have an online catalog--which I will add to Book sources. It's at [11] and it does not include any books of his. I conclude he is not regarded as a significant author in either country. I am in general not willing to pay much heed to what the subject prefers, & out policy is that doing so is restricting to marginal cases and even so is entirely optional. But this does not matter here, for, regardless of his wishes one way or the other, we have no justification for including it. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
btw, I;'ve found a very good source with links to National library catalogs, [hhttp://www.library.uq.edu.au/natlibs/], from University of Queensland, & I will be adding all of the ones we do not presently have. The number available is much greater than it was a few years ago, so we finally do have good sources for Latin America in addition to the ones for Argentina and Brazil. . DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a possible hoax unless somebody other than User:AcademieIT can verify that the sources cited support this article. While the family may exist, the individual is questionable: [12]. That DGG finds a different author of one of his listed works is suggestive. Following a complaint to OTRS from a German researcher indicating that this contributor was manufacturing fake articles under this name and User:Academie (Ticket:2009121810004629), a source check of some of his contributions failed. For instance, the now-deleted Louise Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld was sourced in part to 1975's I granduchi di Toscana della casa Asburgo-Lorena. Obscure, but an OTRS agent who had access checked it and found no mention of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld. She also found that the book only covered events up to 1859. According to that article, the subject lived from 1882-1957. Her parents were born in 1854 and 1856, respectively. Two articles by this contributor, that one and Prince Ferdinand Rainieri Habsburg-Lorraine, have been deleted as hoaxes by two separate administrators. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per MRG Avi (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extention basin

Extention basin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is original research / spam with blatant COI. The original version of this article, written by User:Ralph G. Mastromonaco, contained links to this paper by Ralph G. Mastromonaco which merely proposes the use of extention basins and to this patent filed by Ralph G. Mastromonaco. None of the other external links make any mention of extention basins. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extention Basins physically exist and are called such.

So - I figure, people may want to know what they are and they may go to Wiki for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph G. Mastromonaco (talk • contribs) 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the notability criteria Einstein's theory relativity would not have been eligible when it was published - Similarly, it would take a reviewer knowledgeable in hydraulics to determine whether the Extention Basin is notable. If the detention basin is included in Wiki then the extention basin should be as well.

I added a reference to Extention Basin from the California Department of Transportation official stormwater manual. That seems to add just enough notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph G. Mastromonaco (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have, as yet, no opinion on the article under discussion here, but would like to point out that, had Wikipedia been around a century or so ago, it would have been quite correct not to have an article on either of Einstein's theories of relativity immediately after publication. The theories only became notable when independent reliable sources had discussed them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Extention Basin is "green" improvement - too detailed to list reasons why here - as compared to the detention basins that wiki allows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph G. Mastromonaco (talk • contribs) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detention Basin is to Extention Basin as UNIVAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_I is to Cray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray Ralph G. Mastromonaco (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not (yet) notable. Note to author: you say "Under the notability criteria Einstein's theory relativity would not have been eligible when it was published"; that is absolutely correct. Then you say "it would take a reviewer knowledgeable in hydraulics to determine whether the Extention Basin is notable." No: the point of the notability criteria is that we do not expect to have the expertise to make correct judgements about which new ideas are significant. We have a different approach - wait to see which ones gain independent comment and endorsement. That way we may be slow to pick up on the eventual winners, but we also do not have articles about the innumerable new ideas that go nowhere. See WP:NFT#The right way to get things you or your friends made up into Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two scholarly articles Google pulls up and the ones in the article seem sufficient for WP:V and WP:N. The promotionalism has apparently been corrected, just needs some work.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first of the Google Scholar hits is a patent application, i.e. a primary source that anyone can create, and the second is an accidental juxtaposition of these two words with punctuation between them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is doubting that the article is well-written and scholarly. The issue is whether it violates our policy on original research. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No reliable third-party sources, no indication of notability. Keep arguments are primarily WP:ILIKEIT, WP:WELLKNOWN, and WP:USEFUL. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome (window manager)

Awesome (window manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability tag removed without adding third-party sources. Pcap ping 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What third-party references are there? I see a few blog posts by the developer of Awesome, a few Awesome wiki links (not 3rd party), some mailing lists, various project sites & hosts - nothing, in fact, that I would call more than a 2nd-party reference. --Gwern (contribs) 23:45 30 January 2010 (GMT)
This article has seen significant improvement since I've first seen it. In other words, its getting where you want it is a process. Most of us are not researchers or writers or anything like that. We are just people who happen to know some things about a topic. The idea here is that an article can only be complete once most people who happen to know stuff come here and add their stuff. I'm sure that if you look at article histories on Wikipedia, you'd learn most articles started out as one or two sentences without any references, let alone credible or notable ones. If you'd delete all such articles, you'd be left with nothing. No expansion, no nothing. Wikipedia would just stop and freeze, there and then. Just by marking this article AfD, you are sending a seriously unfriendly message to both current and future contributors. FWIW, I think all the time that went into developing your procedures and things like that could have been better spent on making Wikipedia easier to edit. --Foxbunny (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC) — Foxbunny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As the Zen saying goes, you can polish a brick as long as you want, but you'll never get a mirror. It may be a decent article now in terms of simple information (I hope the Awesome wiki or whatever has as good an overview), but that's orthogonal to issues of notability. --Gwern (contribs) 18:46 1 February 2010 (GMT)
Your points are orthogonal to what I've said, too, Gwern. I have a feeling you weren't reading past the first sentence. Anyway, notability policy is thoroughly broken because it is allowed to override the principle of usefulness. In fact, the whole policy system is broken from where we stand. --Foxbunny (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add another note, just to point out the bigger picture. Let's say we do agree that awesome article is to go. It's no good. It sucks. It's a brick. Ok, it's deleted. Poof. Now, we have an article on wmii next, because it's even worse. It's also marked as not following the notability policy and doesn't cite a single credible 3rd party reference. ion (window manager) is just waiting to be marked for notability, too. Larswm and dwm? Why are they even there? xmonad and ratpoison are lucky. One got referenced by OSNews, one by IBM Developer Works. Good for them. So what's the point? The point is, things like OSNews and IBM Developer Works are now able to say what is relevant to the Wikipedia users and what is not. It also says that if we get an OSNews editor to write about awesome, our article will suddenly comply with the notability guideline, and hence we can influence the fate of an article. Finally, it says that we should check OSNews and IBM Developer Works before we contribute anything to Wikipedia, because anything that doesn't come from those and similar sources will be rejected and cast into oblivion with an optional Zen quote. I tell you again, this whole notability business is broken and if you try to be anal about enforcing it, you will end up with a broken Wikipedia only mainstream people find useful. --Foxbunny (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your link seems to be broken. --Gwern (contribs) 01:43 14 February 2010 (GMT)
It was a joke. Pcap ping 01:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ingcompareme

Ingcompareme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Would have qualified as an unremarkable CSD website, but for the claim of some million hits. Looks like unambiguous advertising and promotion. Request AfD. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 10:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. SNOW close as obviously meeting our standards DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reis Ashraf

Reis Ashraf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not sure if he meets notability standards Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 09:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Yulin Yang

Julian Yulin Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant autobio with scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn JohnCD (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westport United F.C.

Westport United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable amateur football team who have neither played in a national league (the regional league they do play in isn't even written about) nor in any senior national cup competitions, therefore failing notability guidelines. -- BigDom 08:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here: Sources to contest PROD
  • This includes "They have brought colour and panache to the game with their Super League victory in 2002 and the wonderful cup runs undertaken since. They came within a game of retaining their Super League crown last year and on Sunday last they became the first club to inscribe their name for the second time on the Tom Kelly Cup."
  • This is from County Roscommon.
  • This refers to some sort of court case.
  • This seems to suggest they have won the FAI Junior Cup.
  • This includes awards.
  • This says "Though Westport United are to carve there own little niche in history next Sunday, for one covey man it’s a case of been there, done that and got the t-shirt".
  • This is a radio programme about the ladies' team.
  • This describes some medals for the ladies.
  • 1987 Connacht Cup winning team.

And so on. Hope that's enough. --candle•wicke 02:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The general rule of thumb for football club notability is eligibility to play in national cup competitions. As they have played in (and won) the FAI Junior Cup (which as I understand is equivalent to England's FA Vase), they meet this criteria. The links provided by Candlewicke are probably enough to satisfy general notability critera. Bettia (talk)
  • Comment: English teams are not notable for playing in the FA Vase (not the national cup competition), they are notable because to play in the FA Vase they have to be eligible for the FA Cup (which is the national cup competition) so this argument doesn't really hold. FWIW, your general rule of thumb was rejected by the community and is not a guideline of any sort. -- BigDom 12:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Lewis (Spiritual Teacher)

David C. Lewis (Spiritual Teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's very little I can find about this fellow, basically he purportedly leads a splinter group that split-off from a fringe religious group being led until last year by Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Lewis made it into the news (in just about the only story I can find) in this AP report but as you can see that's clearly not a basis for an article, and it does not remotely establish notability. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails to meet the notability criteria of WP;BIO in that he has receieved little, if any, coverage in independent secondary sources. Far short of the "significant coverage" required. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless more sources can be provided WP can not have an article on this person. The sad thing is that the only way he is likely to become "notable" is if he does something wrong and becomes the topic of controversy. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with the above. Fails to meet WP:BIO, via either awards/accomplishments or significant recognition in RSs. In re: to Steve – on the other hand, if he was well-known only for something controversial, it would fail WP:BLP1E and would (hopefully) be deleted on that basis. JamieS93❤ 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Price (actor)

Nick Price (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sixteen year old who has had a few acting roles to date, though none seem particularly notable. The real problem is that searching on his name (which is difficult given that it's common, and he has the same name as a famous golfer) does not seem to be turning up any significant coverage in reliable sources (adding the word "dixie", from the title of perhaps his biggest film, weeds out a lot). He is young and it's quite possible he'll end up with bigger parts and clear notability, but for now I think he fails WP:GNG. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, IMDB is not considered a reliable source, and simply having an entry there does not at all make one notable. You'd need evidence of coverage in reliable secondary sources in order to argue that he's "notable enough." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bigtimepeace', I don't know what else is a better source than [24]. I'll have a look then and see if I can post some secondary sources. Just having a look at The Three Investigators and the Secret of Terror Castle, I'm starting to think that this should never have been considered for deletion. He has second billing as Peter Crenshaw. I'm also looking at the comments for the movie The Terror Castle Message Board, gooing on what I have seen as comments for other films that are considered mainstream with main stream "deemed to be very notable "actors, I think that this is an indication of notability. That's why I vote to Keep the article! (Marinesuper (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • I saw those, but they don't really "speak toward his performance," they just mention that he's in the movie. In order to write an article, we need to be able to say something about him via sources, and I can't see this being anything more than a list of films a la IMDB. My argument for deletion is that he clearly fails WP:GNG, but even if we're talking WP:ENT I think it's clear he has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films" which is the only criteria there he could remotely be considered to pass. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agraceful

AfDs for this article:
Agraceful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band. No reliable sources identified despite GS search.The only hope in the list of Google news archive hits was a review that turned out to be user-contributed, not editorial appears likely . All the other references were in club listings and the like. Bongomatic 05:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the review that is user-submitted—essentially a blog entry. It is not actually part of the newspaper. Bongomatic 05:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's use submitted and not by someone who legitimately works for the paper? (There were three user submitted reviews in one of their album articles, which I redirected.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. However, the Leader claims to be a blog. See its advertising page. This is not the historical newspaper. Bongomatic 05:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 as blatant misinformation. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 06:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Play Date

Nick Play Date (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find sources that this exists, no Google hit and nothing on any of Nickelodeon's sites Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Hito Top 100 Singles

2005 Hito Top 100 Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lists by individual radio stations aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gibbons

Nick Gibbons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was PROD'ed previously, so I declined PROD. Rationale from nominator was "Unreferenced biography of a living person. Notability per either WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER has not been established." which seems accurate to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Baker

AfDs for this article:
Erik Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom. There was an ongoing dispute over speedy tags on the page. No personal take on the article itself. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This is -maybe- a near miss on A7 (I think A7 applies but I can see how one might disagree) but a pretty clear G11, which it is currently nominated for. This is a resume. I mean, literally, this is what the Wikipedia article about me would look like if I started pasting all the sentences in my resume into the article. No. Delete.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, the ongoing dispute regarding the speedy tags appears to have been between the original author of the article and the person(s) placing speedy tags. By which I mean, the original author kept deleting the speedy tag. I don't see how this is considered an ongoing dispute and justification for procedurally removing the speedy tagging and redirecting to AfD. I have to think this is some kind of mistake, right? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - self-promotion of music industry middleman non-notable per WP:CREATIVE. MuffledThud (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy Delete The article seems to be promotional in nature A7 or G11.
  • Weak delete Ok, so someone had CSD'd it, which rather hid the AFD. I didn't agree with the CSD, moved the article to a shorter name, and deleted the implausible redirect noted above. Then I saw this AFD. I think that based on this person's history, they do meet some notability requirements. This article itself needs work to stay, so if someone can fix it, it may be alright (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Most of the entry isn't even about him, it's simply a boilerplate description of A&R work with his name pasted in. Hairhorn (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete per above. Working with notable artists doesn't make you inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Imperial County, California. Move already done JForget 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Centro metropolitan area

AfDs for this article:
El Centro metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page should be deleted because it is about a metropolitan area that is about Imperial County. Imperial County is the only county in that metropolitan area of less than 200,000 people. Two users a for a deletion/merge with the Imperial article and currently one user opposes it. This article can simply be merged into the ill Imperial County article. See Talk:El Centro metropolitan area#Necessity of article. House1090 (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge San Diego has a population exceeding 3 million people, that one is more important. As for Ventura County, that one should be merged too. House1090 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a key and important economic metropolitan area (the largest in terms of economic diversity in the state) of the Southern Border. It should stay for reference and consistency with the San Diego metropolitan area. In the case of San Diego being more important they are equally important in this sense. It makes for consistency with other metropolitan area articles for it to not be deleted. SoCal L.A. (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Imperial County, as others have said. The official name should be prefered over an informal name when they both refer to the same thing. Side note: WP exists for the sake of its readers, not its subjects. (i.e. What's important is people who are looking for info on Imperial County, not Imperial County's feelings when it is compared to San Diego County.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. if San Diego County and the San Diego metropolitan area are the same thing merge them too. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same thing. SoCal L.A. (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then AfD the "area" article and you have my "vote." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Any one needs the information that was in the article, you may go to my sandbox to get it (I did to help SoCal with the adding of information to the Imperial County Article). Thank you, House1090 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrotronics

Retrotronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be an actual term; only one reference uses "Retrotronics" as a company name Rapido (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's an overlap with steampunk, that's only one aspect of it. There's a large, maybe greater, crossover with the retro-futurists and that's quite distinct from the steampunks. There's also, probably the longest-established, genre being within audiophile hi-fi, and that has nothing to do with the "scenes". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "retrotronics" name was that suggested by the original proposer, and in the absence of any better suggestions, that's what it was created as. I for one would have no objection to a rename, should anything suggest itself. However I can't think of a term that's quite such a good encapsulation of the movement, without using a clumsy half-dozen words. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Re-establish at such time and with such title that there is adequate coverage in published secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a place to start a discussion of a field. --Bejnar (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are some reliable sources with articles about the subject matter of the article, but they do not all use the term "retrotronics" to describe the return of vinyl LPs in record stores or the hobby of building vacuum tube radios or crystal radios. I found the term "retrotronics" used in the New York Daily News without any need to explain what it meant, as if it were an obvious reference. An article in Japanese (Google machine translation) used "retrotronics" without elaboration to describe a USB a turntables and a device which transfers audio cassettes to digital devices. Other sources talking about modern use of obsolete turntables and vacuum tubes used the terms "retro-tech," "retro-aesthetic" and "retro flair." Some just say "retro electronics" such as [25], [26] and [27]."Retro electronics" could be used as the article title. (I would exclude coverage of the music style of that name and focus on technology). "Retro-tech" was used back in 1986 for word processors lacking the capabilities of computers. "Retro-tech" might be an appropriate title to move the article to, since it appears to cover the same desire to use yesterday's technologies, and has more references. So there seems to be a kernal of an article there about people preferring media of a bygone era, but it is too amorphous for me to give it a a strong keep. Edison (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, I think the concept is certainly notable, and its restriction to electrical and electronic devices seems to be a feature of it, but this specific name is certainly much less so. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Renault Koleos. JForget 01:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Samsung QM5

Renault Samsung QM5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like possible ad, notability, needs copyedit, unclear, confusing iBen 02:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madu Ragothaman

Madu Ragothaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment: Madhu Ragothaman plays for a club in the Millennium Cricket League [29]. I have no views as to notability, I'd just like to remark how unsual - and commendable - Supertouch is in considering the possibility of an alternative foreign spelling. This possibility never seems to enter the brain of Wikipedia's host of ethnocentrically clueless deletionists. Wikipedia needs to have a parking zone for foreign names suggested for deletion to act as a buffer against destructive ignorance. Opbeith (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are familiar with the local language, feel free to dig up some references. Supertouch (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't pass WP:CRIN. The Millenium league is a local league in NJ and there are plenty of those. For cricketers, language isn't an issue with sourcing. Any recent cricketers that pass our notability criteria are typically included in Cricinfo or CricketArchive. —SpacemanSpiff 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I didn't say Madu Ragothaman played for Millennium League, I said Madhu Ragothaman did, to indicate that Anglophones should not assume too many things without considering alternatives, Horatio. In fact the article was expanded to show that the cricket player referred to is Madusudhanan Ragothaman, so the original title was an abbreviation. And Madusudhanan Ragothaman has now asked for the article to be removed. It's sometimes worth checking back to the article. Opbeith (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See this edit from a user who states, "I am Madu Ragothaman, I dont want information to be on the internet, please delete it." I am neutral to deletion. Cnilep (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denise James

Denise James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage I can find is her profile in her employer's website, 1 of 32 such, from which the article was clearly derived. A basic run-of-the-mill non-notable reporter as far as I can see. Emeraude (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Kevin (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Lyons

Bonnie Lyons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer and professor. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC standards. Warrah (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"legitimate, "respected" and "promising" are not sufficient for wp:notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though not a very strong keep), She is a Full professor at U Texas San Antonio, which is a research university, though not a major one. She teaches literature, not creative writing, and so inclusion under WP:PROF must be judged on that. (anyway, she is not notable as a poet: one of her two books is in 3 libraries, the other in 7). She has a dozen article on other American Jewish writera , but one one relevant book of scholarship, a biography of Henry Roth, ISBN 9780815405160 . It was published by a minor publisher only, is only 182 pages long, and is held in 278 WorldCat libraries , [31], a moderate number for a work on n important contemporary author. There is only one other English language book specifically about Roth (most are about Roth in comparison with other writers, because of the small amount of his published work), held in 600 libraries [32] . There is one third party GoogleNews reference to the book (and to her), an article in the San Antonio Express-News [33]. There are about 50 direct and indirect references to the book in G Scholar, the most relevant being "Bonnie Lyons, whose excellent Henry Roth: The Man and His Work is the only book-length study of the author, depicts David as undergoing three stages of initiation described by Mircea Eliade and as manifesting a renewal of the tradition of Jewish mysticism" in Modern Fiction Studies [34] ("only" because it was before the other book on Roth was written) . I suppose she therefore counts as an authority in her field on Roth. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the strength of that informed, intelligent research DGG's conclusion has my respect. Opbeith (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Not Just Magic Episodes

List of Not Just Magic Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also main article:

Not Just Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable amateur online video series which fails WP:WEB. De-prodded without explanation by User:NotJustMagic, which appears to be blocked User:NotJustMagicofficial under a slightly different name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RuMother

RuMother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable mixed drink. No references in the article to establish any kind of notability. Wikipedia is not Mr. Boston. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zengzhi Li

Zengzhi Li (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article concerns an academic with no evidence of passing WP:PROF; additionally, regardless of whether WP:PROF is met, the article in its present state also fails WP:V. Some versions of this article listed Li as a "distinguished professor" at XJTU, and if he holds that title he may be sufficiently notable, but searching the XJTU web site for his Romanized name found nothing usable and I can't read the chinese results. The article is sourced only to an article co-authored by Li that claims an XTJU affiliation and lists him only as "professor and doctoral advisor in Institute of Computer Architecture and Networks". I can't find any evidence that this paper or his other works have had enough impact to pass WP:PROF #1.

The article was, effectively, prodded and unprodded four times: Salad Days (talk · contribs) (now banned) prodded it a year ago, and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) proposed it for deletion in october with the reason "Non-notable article", but both times DGG (talk · contribs) deprodded it with the presumption that "distinguished professor" means what we expect it to mean and therefore that he passes WP:PROF. Abductive (talk · contribs) prodded it again a few days ago, and DGG unprodded it again based on a mistaken Google scholar search but quickly reversed himself. Finally, Atama (talk · contribs) declined the prod on procedural grounds based on the fact that one may only prod an article once. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete On the thoroughly non-policy grounds of being an article too short and dull to have any value. Whatever the virtues of a pack of wikilawyers dancing on the head of the WP:Notability pin, there's just no content in this article worth having. He exists, his chair is at a particular university. The phone book can tell us that much. It doesn't even tell us what his particular field is, his presumed doctoral thesis, or which piece of work made him so "distinguished". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for getting so irritable about deletions! Opbeith (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I contested the deletion on procedural grounds, but I would have nominated for AfD myself if I had more time right now (I'm trying to clear away all the expired prods, I guess all the other admins who normally do that actually have lives on a Friday night; good for them). The article clearly doesn't meet our criteria. -- Atama頭 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Delete I've looked at it further. I at first thought there were many articles with a great many citations, which confirmed notability, & deprodded on that basis, as that would show his notability and , I assumed, distinguished status. I since checked further, and almost all of them are by people of another name. The name is a common one, and so I have had to distinguish by subject, which is not really accurate, And GS does not include publications in Chinese. Though I consider it correct that full professors at major research universities are almost always notable, and this is a major research university, I have just now found some further information about him, and he is an associate professor, not a full professor. The information is at the end of the pdf of his article, and reads in full "Yinliang Zhao was born in 1954. He is an associate professor in the Institute of Computer Architecture and Networks, Xi’an Jiaotong University. His research interests include optimization algorithm and parallel algorithm " It is sometimes helpful--for better or worse-- to actually read the reference. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oops, you are certainly right. The actual quote is "He is a professor and doctoral advisor in Institute of Computer Architecture and Networks. His research interests include Computer Architecture and Networks. so it remains possible he really is notable , but we'd need to get more information than that. If we do, the article can be rewritten using that information DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Saw the multiple prods, but saw they all had the same unprodder. Don't really think this procedurally needs to be here. One can (or should be able to) reverse one's own mistaken unprod; older versions of WP:PROD may have said this more clearly. The guideline should be clarified or changed.John Z (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WT:PROD would be the place to bring up changes to the proposed deletion policy, however I know that there has been a discussion about this subject since last year and there is yet no consensus as to how to change it, or if it should be changed. I've always considered it okay for a prod tag to be re-added by the person who removed it if done in a short time, just as DGG did this most recent time at this article, and I've done so myself when I realized that my reason for objecting to a prod was faulty. -- Atama頭 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is an unusual and confused case, and there is no reason to try to adjust policy to deal with it. Most deproddings are straightforward enough, and if anyone objects to them AfD is the obvious course. If in doubt, there is no harm in getting a general community decision, even if not actually necessary. People make mistakes (I seem to have made several different ones here myself) DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay some digging [35] indicates that he is considered a 'famous prof' This though is considered a primary source from his university and not indicative of any reasons as to why they are famous. The page also doesnt link to his profile either in englishh. I am certain this page will exist in chinese (which i cannot read unfortunaetly, and would be good if another reader could provide or find the translation for this, anyone with those skills here?). The article as of right now Fails WP:PROF, unless it can be established that he passes this, which right now is difficult to do. So at this point Im leaning towards deletion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ill add that the link i provided was selected by searching a header famous proffessors [36] but this could just be a translation error and just be the faculty depeartment listing of all profs. Nether the less I still think a profile page could be found which would indicate wether or not he satisfies WP:Prof.

I've done a very limited bit of expansion based on content and search engine follow up. The paper was published in International Journal of Information Technology "a scholarly open access, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, quarterly and fully refereed journal focusing on theories, methods and applications in information technology", ISSN: 2070-3961. The journal has a distinguished editorial board, http://www.icis.ntu.edu.sg/scs-ijit/default.html (It doesn't mention their professorships and associate professorships there, but I've looked up a number, so anyone else can do so first before questioning their capacity). As DGG points out the key article was cited as a reference in the article, hence a statement like "The phone book can tell us that much. It doesn't even tell us what his particular field is ...". suggests a fundamental lack of interest and willingness to examine the article and its sources. As for the article being too short, my impression is that that is precisely why an article is identified as a stub and why editors are invited to help expand it. Until someone who is capable of adequately checking out sources of information - either a natural language expert systems specialist or someone who is able to use Chinese character set search engines - is able to follow up, this should be left as a stub. What is the point of deleting stubs, which are an encouragement to the expansion of human knowledge rather than its frustration? Opbeith (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the correct journal; "International Journal of Information Technology" its imapct factor isnt that high [37] (my opinion only). Im not convinced that the paper is a huge contribution to science and that it even saitisfies WP:PROF. To me at least this would mean high citations, and high impact. Which this doesnt seem to meet. Again to me it goes back down to whats in the chinese sources and is he notable there. To me this means either we find the sources necessary to establish his notability or the article warrents deletion under WP:Prof. The discussion for this is now, not in some arbitary time from now. This is just my opinion of the source provided, Im sure people will have a different opinion than me on this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be an argument for deleting all stubs, ie doing away with the concept, and probably for not allowing any unfinished articles either.Opbeith (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not discussing deletion of all stubs. I am discussing my view on deletion of this article that hasnt been able to meet notability at this time in WP:PROF. My view would be the same if it were a fully developed sized article and still failed notability for academics. But that is not to say we cant try find the refs right now that show Li meets the criteria. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Floreani

Luc Floreani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is unclear on this. The best claim here for meeting WP:MUSIC is the theme tune for a television program, but a google search is not turning up independent evidence of this; instead, most mentions are that the song was used in an advert. Is this enough for WP:MUSIC?

Zero gnews hits for Luc, which casts doubt on the chartible work conferring notability. Previous prod contested without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The theme to Today Tonight might pass WP:MUSIC, but as nom said it's used in an advert which has no notability itself (unlike, say, the Girl Scouts singing True Colors for a Dove Superbowl ad which got mentioned in USA Today). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Tycoon

MMA Tycoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Free web-browser game for which I can find no significant coverage. My PROD was contested without comment by an SPA.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Data Solutions

Emerald Data Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software company. No significant coverage found in reliable sources, only passing mentions and press releases. TNXMan 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Delete as non notable --I think it's clear enough at this point. Such student theater groups need to be positively shown notable to get included. this one clearly is not--local performances only. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mapua Tekno Teatro

Mapua Tekno Teatro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established in the article. No reliable sources found on a web search. It fails the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Bluemask (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Diamond

AfDs for this article:
Graham Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP that was kept at the previous AFD in early 2006 but with little discussion and with only one editor strongly in favour of keeping. I found no significant coverage of the author or his books, so I think a second look is in order.--Michig (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fairly wide publication" is not among the criteria that determine a notable author. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the guideline. I still find the creation of multiple novels to be more noteworthy criteria than the possession of breasts and appearance in one issue of Playboy magazine that the same guideline page references as being a criteria guideline for being noteworthy. Amentet (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions differ, but yours is a heterodox opinion with respect to WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is? According to which criteria? Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has had over a dozen books published and they sell well. Granted, Fantasy is not a classy genre but Diamond appears to have produced a body of work over a period of time that speaks to his notability. Stormbay (talk)
Did I disparage fantasy fiction? Apologies. What I meant to say was, I don't understand how even a large body of work satisfies WP:AUTHOR if no other author has commented on them. Am I misreading the guideline? Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep His most widely held book is his most recent , Forest wars, (1995), held in 136 WorldCat libraries. . I found 3 reviews: [38] [39] , and [40] (based on the information listed in GNews Archive.) I conclude from this that he was just sufficiently notable  : I did get his birthdate from the LC authority file and added it to the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure they are reviews of Diamond's books? SF/Fantasy isn't exactly a genre where authors don't receive any coverage, so I would have expected more if he really is/was notable.--Michig (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's extremely difficult to judge notability of sf as one goes further back. The intensity of coverage of sf in mainstream sources at present was not the case 20 years ago, and the specialized sources that were available were not in general collected much by libraries. Given copyright, it will be a very long time before the googles cover the period. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, notability in this case is on the weak side. I'm not comfortable retaining biographical articles on authors who lack significant coverage just because a couple of their books were reviewed. JBsupreme (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus here is that those roles for which there is a reliable source, do not add up to notability. Kevin (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mireille Allonville

Mireille Allonville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Bit part actress with no real notability. Article appears to be sourced from a fansite noq (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. I just went through the article and deleted the irrelevant name-dropping and the quoting of her actual lines from her roles. What is left isn't much: a few non-speaking roles and bit parts (which the article had described as "starring in..."). --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would first like to thank Melanie for editing the page for me. I omitted to put on the relationship with 3-2-1, this has been corrected. Although Mireille was not a main stream actress, she has still made a contribution to the making of the productions and has acted with good actors and actresses in main stream films and shows. Especially the eight years she was on 3-2-1. For it's time the show was amazing attracting 12 million viewers a week. For these reasons I ask that you keep the Mireille Allonville page. Thank you. Harramed (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Harramed (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, JForget 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient sources. Dlabtot (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I don't understand this deletion process. When I was looking for information about Mireille being in Hi Summer, one of the other cast members was Anna Dawson. I looked at her Wiki site and at the top it reads: "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (March 2009)". There is more information on the Mireille site. I therefore ask again that this site remain. Many thanks Harramed (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping an article. Wikipedia does contain a large number of unsourced or poorly sourced articles and various initiatives are under way to reduce that number. What was contentious in that article that had not been removed? noq (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polynomially reflexive space

Polynomially reflexive space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-standing unreferenced tag. I searched for references and found only found two journal articles; no evidence for notability. There are two links from other articles, also in unsourced statements. An error in the definition was pointed out on the talk page 5 years ago and has not been fixed. RDBury (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article has an internal consistency that suggests that it was written by someone who knew what they were talking about. The continued presence of defects in an article should not be considered grounds for arbitrary deletion when the subject area is not one of common expertise, particularly if proposers advance no evidence of their own competence to form a judgment.Opbeith (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether it's correct or not or whether the author knows the subject isn't in question. Wikipedia is not a repository for current research. I included the note about the error not as a reason for deletion in itself, but as evidence that there is no one taking enough notice of it to ensure that it's accurate, which is exactly the danger the danger with non-notable subjects.--RDBury (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this is current research. This is a descriptive article which refers to another article which provides an example of what is described. The article says quite specifically that polynomially reflexive spaces are rare but it quotes an example of a polynomially reflexive space, a symmetric tsirelson space. At the Tsirelson space article the symmetric Tsirelson space is referred to as being polynomially reflexive. If the Tsirelson space article is OK then this article has to be OK. Deleting the explanation of something that another article refers to even if there is no link seems unwarranted. Lupin did not in fact refer to an error, just to an apparent lack of clarity. Surely it is dangerous to assume that where a subject is in a recondite area it should be deleted if there is no evidence of routine supervision. Similarly using the number of journal articles to judge the notability of something that is in itself rare in a field that is not overpopulated seems a very unreliable tool. Lupin did not in fact refer to an error, simply requested clarification. You and I are not competent to judge the adequacy of the article and a lack of frequent visits seems a dangerous basis to remove information whose relevance elsewhere we are unaware of. Have earlier, apparently informed editors, who may still be around been asked for their comments - Charles Matthews and Michael Hardy, or some of the editors who contributed to the Tsirelson space article? This seems a wiser procedure for checking the appropriateness of deletion. Opbeith (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I shouldn't be assuming your non-competence alongside mine, however you do seem to be relying on a priori arguments. Opbeith (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion/inclusion criteria are set up so that a great deal of expertise is not needed. For math articles what is required is a non-trivial mention in a reliable secondary source, usually a textbook. I made a good faith effort to find such a source and none was given in the article so I have to conclude that the subject does not meet notability criteria. If you feel the subject is notable then show how it satisfies the criteria given in WP:Notability. Again, I'm not claiming Lupin's note in the talk page (and yes, it was an error - Lupin was being polite) as a primary reason for deleting the article since I would hope that lack of evidence for notability would be sufficient. The reason I included it is that it shows the subject is apparently so abstruse that no one has fixed an obvious factual error in 5 years. My understanding is that that's part of the reason the notability criteria exist and are set where they are; Wikipedia should not have articles that are so technical that only a few researchers are competent to verify them since there is too much current research going on and too few Wikipedians who would be able to ensure the material is accurate. However, you right in that including it is a form of WP:NOEFFORT so I withdraw it as a possible reason for deletion, lack of evidence of notability still being sufficient reason. On the other hand, most of your arguments seem to be variations of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:EFFORT which are not arguing to the basic issue of whether the article meets notability criteria.--RDBury (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably being polite and patient with me, as you you're numerate enough to be able to confirm the error. Nevertheless I think there is still an issue, in that this article aims to provide the explanation of another term which, however rare, is important in the context of part of another article whose notability I assume is not challenged. Deleting the Polynomially reflexive space article basically marks the side road from Tsirelson space as non-existent because it's dangerous. I would have thought there are two other more constructive options. One is to repair the road, which may require an expert road-mender. The other is simply to flag the road as being dangerous and advise anyone that they take it at their own risk - either as a tag or in a form of words included in the text. The road links the Tsirelson space article to somewhere a user of that article might want to check out via the closest route first before embarking on a more complicated journey (via mathematical dictionaries, textbooks, search engines) to find the place. The rules provide guidelines, they shouldn't obstruct the pursuit of knowledge. Incidentally - I'm afraid the intricacies of "notability" lose me - does the removal of this term imply that the reference to polynomially reflexive spaces should be edited out of the Tsirelson space article? And should any other references to polynomially reflexive spaces, linked or unlinked, be identified and examined as part of the deletion process? Is there no recommendation for an overview to ensure that decisive action isn't taken on a piecemeal basis? Opbeith (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have taken the step of asking Tsirelson, which is of course at the opposite extreme from looking at policies that are claimed to be valid for every topic under the sun. It nonetheless seems reasonable to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That seems an appropriate way of pursuing the issue in a constructive spirit. Opbeith (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, primarily as failing WP:N. As noted above, the main definition is ambiguously stated, and it is rather unclear what the subject of the article actually is (the correct definition probably involves requiring that for every N the space of complex-valued N-homogeneous polynomials from X to C be reflexive, or something similar, I am not sure). I checked MathSciNet, and the paper of Farber, given as the main reference, is cited only 8 times there since its publication in 1994. Given that the notion in question is highly technical and highly specialized, even for the experts, that does not seem sufficient to pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Neutral for now. The source[41] pointed out by Sławomir Biały actually makes it clear that the notion predates the work of Farber, and gives references to the work of others who studied this notion. Nsk92 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Proposals for deletion often don't check alternative formulations, even obvious ones - eg the proposal to delete Richard C. Longworth - allegedly a "non-notable scribe" - never seemed to have looked for "Richard Longworth". The problem is compounded with non-Anglo formulations. That's particularly dangerous where specialised, and so possibly infrequently consulted, articles are concerned, when not many people are going to be aware of the impending prospect of removal. Google and even other more specialised search engines will only produce the results you ask them to. The encyclopaedic spirit should also require insistence on a bit of lateral thinking to be a necessary component of any culling procedure. Opbeith (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the person creating the article to give references for it that show the subject is notable. If someone had to jump through all the hoops your suggesting, checking all permutations of the name in multiple languages, before doing an AfD then nothing would ever be deleted and Wikipedia would fill up with spam and nonsense. Yes it is better to find a reference if possible and I think I made a reasonable, good faith effort to find one that meets notability criteria. If you have a reliable secondary source with a nontrivial mention of the subject then add it to the article and I'll gladly withdraw the AfD. In other words, if the AfD is unfair then say it's unfair and prove it's unfair, but don't use this backhanded "Gee, there are so many articles that are unfairly put up for deletion," argument.--RDBury (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced is not a criterion for deletion, and part of the purpose of having an AfD in the first place it to attempt to turn up additional references. And as a matter of overall procedural conduct, I am reluctant to point out that perhaps WP:BEFORE was not observed very judiciously in this case. At any rate, that particular point is now moot, as the article is now sports a reference. So, there is only the question of notability to settle. The Google scholar search turns up 11 relevant sources, 6 of which are in top journals. Many of the 8 cross-references listed on MathSciNet seem to be directly relevant to the topic of the article, and some of them are in good journals. While there is no concrete numerical criterion for notability, I should think that this one passes. Therefore I am leaning towards keep. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be using different criteria for notability. WP:SECONDARY gives a link to the Ithaca College Library to explain the difference between research articles and survey articles. Research articles are considered primary research and therefore not evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines the term, even if they do appear in top journals. Survey articles are allowed but I didn't see any in the Google link you gave, nor did I find any in my own search. Please don't assume that I did not perform a good faith search for sources simply because your interpretation of notability guidelines differs from mine. WP:BEFORE states "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist," which I did. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no such sources or that I spend more time looking for them than it took to create the article in the first place. WP:YFA states "Gather references both to use as source(s) of your information and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter," which is why I claim that the onus of proving notability falls on the person who created it, not on the person attempting to delete it.--RDBury (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you are asking for a bit much here. The basic principle of WP:N and all other notability guidelines is that sources cited be independent from the subject (rather than necessarily be secondary in the technical sense of WP:SECONDARY). As WP:N puts it: "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." Thus for a mathematical theorem proved by a particular author, I would consider research papers by other mathematicians that significantly use or generalize that theorem to be valid examples of independent coverage, even if no survey papers are available. Similarly, if someone introduces a particular mathematical notion, and other researchers start actively using and studying this notion in their papers, I would consider that to be perfectly good examples of independent coverage, even if nobody has bothered to write a survey article about it yet. I think that for notability purposes the real question is the extent and depth of independent coverage available. My impression was that in this case the amount and depth of such coverage (by people other than Farber) was not sufficiently significant, but if evidence is presented to the contrary, I am quite prepared to change my mind. Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, but disagree with the subjective assessment that "the amount and depth of such coverage (by people other than Farber [sic]) was not sufficiently significant". It might be better to generalize the subject of the article to some degree, even as much as "polynomial properties of Banach spaces". The literature review here clearly indicates that polynomial reflexivity (and things very closely connected to it) have been studied by quite a few researchers independent of the subject, some of them (like Sean Dineen) being quite distinguished in the field. So I'm just not seeing the same lack of amount and depth, based on my own cursory gestalt of the available sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Why choose between keep and delete? The topic is probably too narrow and special for an article, but appropriate for a section in another article (near the end, since technical). Specifically, I propose to merge it into polynomials on vector spaces, for now a purely algebraic article. The (good) Vector space article contains analytic sections; also "Polynomials on vector spaces" could contain. I've expanded the article a bit, so that its relation to polynomials is more clear now. And of course, a redirect page should be made here. Alternatively, it could be merged into Reflexive space or even Banach space. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm very happy to withdraw my own Keep above in favour of whatever the people competent to judge decide between them now that the matter has received thorough consideration, for which Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 20:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Python Paste

Python Paste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. A plain google search doesn't yield signifianct coverage in reliable sources, just some technical and blog articles. Nothing on google news, and only a single mention in a technical article about something else in google news archives. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. probably a consensus to merge - but further discussion as to target needed Scott Mac (Doc) 21:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bourgeois v. Peters

Bourgeois v. Peters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Proposed for deletion after previously being contested.

Reason for proposed deletion was "Topic of unestablished notability." Taelus (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Hito Top 100 Singles

2004 Hito Top 100 Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination, article proposed for deletion after previously having prod contested.

Reason for proposed deletion was "no sources, no context"

Previous reason for contesting deletion was "Fix not destroy"

Hope this helps, Taelus (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect to Baneheia case. I'll redirect, which will leave the history there for anyone to merge whatever they deem pertinent. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 19:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viggo Kristiansen

Viggo Kristiansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the spirit of WP:BLP1E, I think this article merits deletion. The only thing that makes him notable is his conviction for rape/murder. There is already an article on the actual case: Baneheia case; anything about him can be said there. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What a fucking dodgy conviction if the information contained here is true. But I digress; Coffee is right in that there is nothing here that can't be tied back to the case, and there is an article on that where all this can reasonably go. A clear example of BLP1E if ever I saw one. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge/redirect. The Baneheia case is one of the most notorious crimes to take place in Norway, and Viggo Kristiansen was convicted as the most culpable of the two perpetrators (hence, Kristiansen received a 21 year containment sentence, while the co-defendant received 19 years in prison). I think that if the article is brought up to the standard on the Norwegian Wikipedia [47] the article may be kept, because there are some more details on his activity in prison. At the very least, someone wanting searching for "Viggo Kristiansen" is most likely looking for information on the Baneheia case so merging and redirecting is OK too. --Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Narrowly; but there is certainly no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Owens

Earl Owens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Not competed at the highest level in an amateur sport. References only show that he holds records in "Masters" category, age 40-44. No other proof of notability. Tassedethe (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I located the results from the 1995 World Championships and have placed a reference to it. He DID compete at the highest level of his division of the sport and PLACED twice, therefore he does pass WP:ATHLETE.Trackinfo (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected this reference. He performed in the World Veterans Championship, not the World Athletics Championship in Gothenburg. Tassedethe (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please let me know if I am violating protocol by adding this comment; I have tried to find a more appropriate place to engage in a general discussion about the definition of "notability" in athletic performances, without success. It seems to me that the significance of great age-group performances has been dismissed without justification. If you are running beer ads, you might argue that no one cares what some old folks do; but if you wish to acknowledge excellence, your criteria need some examination. If a 70-year-old ran a sub-4-minute mile to win the World Masters Athletics championships, would this be unworthy of note simply because he wouldn't have placed in the Olympics? Apparently this is what the current definition of "notable athlete" is saying. Who decides this? And if this is the wrong place to raise the question, where would be better? JHBrewer (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate place would be the talk page for WP:ATHLETE, or perhaps on the Village Pump WP:VP. When addressing notability of athletes performing at the Olympics or World Championships is usually enough for the person to be declared notable even if there are no other reliable sources that discuss the person in detail. This historically has been to ensure that athletes who performed before the Internet was prevalent, or who come from non-Western countries, get a fair deal (i.e reliable sources about them are likely to be offline, or difficult to obtain). By definition Masters athletes (i.e. performing in age limited categories) are not at the "the highest amateur level of a sport", and by current standard aren't regarded as automatically notable. If there are reliable sources that discuss them (per the WP:GNG guidelines) then, of course, they are (as a sub4min 70yo would probably be). Tassedethe (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - He has a world record and there is an Earl Owens who was in the NY Times quite a bit for running but I can't be sure if it's the same person. Doesn't meet the criteria put forth in WP:ATHLETE but it does seem like he's notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The notion that a world record in the Masters category doesn't represent performance at the highest level smacks of discrimination on grounds other than performance in competition with one's peers. Performance level is judged differently between men and women. Should women's achievements be ruled non-notable on the grounds that the events are sex-restricted?
Like other marathons and half-marathons, the Parkersburg Half Marathon(on various occasions functioning as the US men's and women's national half marathon championship) has categories for Men, Women, Men Masters, Women Masters, Men Wheelchair and Women Wheelchair. In 1989 Earl Owens won the Men Masters section in a record time that was seven and a half minutes behind the time of the Men's winner, Steve Kogo of Kenya, but two and a half minutes faster than the Women's winner, Diane Brewer.http://newsandsentinelhalfmarathon.com/page/content.detail/id/500030/Early-history-of-the-race.html?nav=5027 (it is only the principle of masters category-restricted racing being conducted at a similar high level to mens and womens category-restricted racing that I'm referring to here, Earl Owens' notability claim relates to his world records) Opbeith (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Longworth

Richard C. Longworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable scribe Orange Mike | Talk 03:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. Numerous references under "Richard Longworth" eg [49]. Why do deletionists waste other people's time and effort instead of doing a bit of basic research and contributing to the net value of knowledge in Wikipedia? Opbeith (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded some of the information about Longworth's purportedly "non-notable" activities (notability obvious from a slight glance at the references). If anyone has the energy and inclination they could disambiguate this Richard Longworth from the other Richard W. Longworth whose article bears the Richard Longworth title. That would be a rather more effective use of time than proposing unread articles for deletion. Opbeith (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Maney

James W. Maney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bio; possibly meant to advertise his mansion, which (the article helpfully tells us) is now a bed and breakfast Orange Mike | Talk 03:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Take another look; a lot turned up about him on Google. So I have added detail and references to the article. Turns out he really was fairly notable. He invented a well known earth-moving tool, and his house is the centerpiece of a National Register of Historic Places historic district named for him. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Later: added more information, more references, and an infobox. --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MelanieN has done the preliminary basic research Orangemike couldn't manage before making the proposal for deletion. Perfectly reasonable article to keep - the Maney Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and named for him. The original model of the earth-moving tool he invented is in the Smithsonian Institution. Etc. Why not do a bit of adequate basic research before proposing and contribute to the net value of knowledge in Wikipedia rather than deducting from it and diverting other people's time and energy (though thanks to MelanieN for producing an interesting and informative article as a result) Opbeith (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like to rescue an occasional article, when it seems like a worthy subject but inadequately covered or badly written. (See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron.) But don't blame OrangeMike; you should have seen this article a week ago, it was in poor shape! A companion article about Maney's wife, written at the same time by the same person, was deleted and deservedly so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I get annoyed by unnecessary deletions and I'd just come straight from his nomination of R. Longworth which could very easily have been sorted out without the need for all the work you put in here. It's so much more effective simply to improve an article, instead of throwing away someone else's hard work, clumsy as it may be (and it isn't always), and using up the energy of other people diverted from efforts elsewhere. I should keep away from here as my cage gets rattled too much, but sometimes you get directed to really interesting subjects. Opbeith (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. userfy on request Scott Mac (Doc) 21:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance: The Musical

Allegiance: The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An obscure musical that, to date (according to a Google search), had a single staged reading in Los Angeles. Plans were floated for a Broadway staging, but nothing has been confirmed, leading to WP:CRYSTAL problems. Warrah (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The musical has received its initial front money and will hold its first staged reading at Playwright's horizons on 42nd Street in NYC on February 22, 2009. Confirmation may be obtained by contacting the General Management company, Charlotte Wilcox Company, which manages major musicals such as West Side Story on Broadway, and the casting company, Telsey & Co., which casts for Wicked among other shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbwayguy (talk • contribs) 03:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, sorry. Warrah (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wiki. How do I move this to a test page, let others comment, and await the time it is actually staged? Advice please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.36.59 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Masters of Taekwondo

List of Grand Masters of Taekwondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated persons; in this case, people who have attained a certain rank, or who hold (or claim) the Grandmaster title, in a martial art. This article had previously been proposed for deletion on 18 July 2009 by an anonymous contributor; that proposal was countered due to lack of a reason for deletion. Janggeom (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Janggeom (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This is not a "loose" association at all: it's a fairly precise and relevant one. Compare with, say, List of chess grandmasters. Reyk YO! 23:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- however, it probably needs to renamed to reflect the fact that only 9th Dan practitioners are listed. The term Grand Master apparently refers to 6th - 9th Dan, which would include thousands and thousands of people. Reyk YO! 00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I understand your reasoning, but the list of Chess grandmasters is not a good comparison. The criterion for inclusion in that list is very specific and easily verified: award of the "Grandmaster" title by FIDE. In the domain of Tae Kwon-Do (or Taekwon-Do or Taekwondo), there are many organisations that award Dan rankings, and standards vary between them. Indeed, not every organisation even has 9th Dan as the highest rank, as the article notes. There are also political influences at work; take, for example, Choi Hong Hi—proclaimed as the Founder of Taekwon-Do and ranked 9th Dan by some of the major groups (ITF), and not even mentioned by, or holding any rank in, other major groups (WTF). "Grandmaster of Tae Kwon-Do" or "9th Dan in Tae Kwon-Do" only makes sense in the context of a specific organisation or set of standards—which do not exist for Tae Kwon-Do as a whole in the same way that they might do for Chess. I hope these comments give some background on the reasons for nominating the article for deletion. Janggeom (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- surely this is a matter for cleanup and clarification rather than deletion. Perhaps the list could be modified to include several lists to account for people who have been awarded by Grand Master status by the important federations. Reyk YO! 08:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Would the content then not be better placed in the articles on those organisations? Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. On further thought, I suppose the article could be cleaned up rather than be deleted, but it would certainly need to be renamed (e.g., "List of Kukkiwon grandmasters of taekwondo"). In this case, some content would need to be moved elsewhere. Janggeom (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on Kukkiwon since this article deals only with martial artists at a certain level recoginized by this specific organization. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Non-Kukkiwon Dan holders are listed in the article (H. H. Choi and others), and were from the beginning (H. U. Lee, C. E. Sereff). The text on Kukkiwon and South Korean government recognition was added later. Janggeom (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks for the correction. I don't do tae kwon do and that's not how I read the article. If it's supposed to cover all TKD organizations the list is likely inadequate (and probably impossible to keep accurate and up-to-date). In that case I would change my vote to Delete. If the authors just want to focus on the Kukkiwon, then I'll stick with my merge vote. Either way I don't think it should be a stand-alone article. I think any list of grandmasters should be in the article of the certifying organization (or omitted altogether). There's too much variability in the standards of martial arts organizations to compare things indiscriminately. For example, a 5th dan in one style may well not confer the same amount of expertise as a 5th dan in another style. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Following one of Reyk's comments above, I suppose the article could be renamed and trimmed down to focus on Kukkiwon grandmasters. The article would then be of similar scope, in principle, to the list of Chess grandmasters (FIDE). I believe the article under discussion was originally meant to cover all of Tae Kwon-Do, and the article title certainly implies that. Janggeom (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mountain

Danny Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable porn actor. Fails WP:PORNBIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly, please undelete the article so it could be further enriched with more information.
The professor had recently died and many of his students and patients are looking for information about him.
Thank you. Graven2k (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lael Anson Best

Lael Anson Best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biographical article about a surgeon, created by an WP:SPA, that fails WP:GNG & WP:BIO. Was the subject of a brief article in the Times of India and once quoted in a BBC article, but no other significant coverage. No independent sources. List of awards appears to have been augmented by the subject himself. WP:NOTRESUME. --RrburkeekrubrR 13:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NanoNAS

NanoNAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article starts off by incorrectly asserting that it's the successor of the GPL'd NASLite 1.x. That is actually incorrect. NASLite-2 is the actual successor. See company's own product pages [50] [51]. I can find no significant independent coverage for this sofware. (Beware that this article is about a piece of hardware, and therm is used generically in the title) Pcap ping 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator expressed no formal opinion; and the only delete vote has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sugarman 3

The Sugarman 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

I am also nominating the following related pages as explained below:

Sugar's Boogaloo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soul Donkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not my usual field. Reallyhick asked me for advice on this,and I'd think it would obviously depend on the notability of the records they make, which is unproven. But two of those records do have articles in Wikipedia , with a source for existence, but not notability. If notablity cannot be shown for them, I'd think both this and they would need to be deleted. The speedy on the band was disputed rather strongly, and it might be best to decide on the three together. Myself, I have no formal opinion, as i would think it rash to have one on a field I know almost nothing about. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all. I originally tagged this for speedy, after which a very contentious debate ensued with the original author. There is no evidence provided that this band meets WP:BAND in any of its 12 criteria. Only one member might be notable (and you have to have two or more), and his article is up for AfD after the original author mentioned it in the argument - I nominated it for deletion after seeing no references provided after having been tagged for such for two years. The original author has stubbornly refused to provide any references other than a brief Allmusic article, and as we all know that's simply not enough. Google tuns up only track and album listings from online stores and such. Since the band is not notable, neither are the albums, since they did not chart; the only reference on those articles is one Allmusic review. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Cancel this !vote. See below. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music, bands, albums and songs are pretty clear on this issue, informing that this article should not be deleted. The notability guidelines state that a band is notable if it meets at least one of their criteria, and this band meets at least 3 of them. For example:
So, without delving any deeper than this, it becomes pretty clear that this article should not be deleted. There is a lot of crap floating around wikipedia which rightfully need to be deleted. Yet, this isn't it. -- Mecanismo | Talk 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Releasing X number of albums does not equal notability. The session musicians that make up this band are not notable, except maybe one of them (and his article is up for AfD right now), and at least two are required to be notable for the group to be notable. And their prominence is your opinion only, and you have stubbornly refused to provide further references from independent, reliable sources to back this up. So the three criteria you mention are not met, nor apparently are any others. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Never mind; see comments below. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With several major mentions by the New York Times and many other mentions by other news sources, plus some book mentions, it is clear that this band is well known in its genre amd there is probably enough material out there to construct a decent article. Keep unequivocally.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 February 2010
  • Comment: I came up with the same NY Times items. Both are mere listings of performances in NYC, and listings of performances do not equate to independent coverage, such as an article specifically about the subject. (I looked for one of those, too, since the original author is apparently unwilling to do so, and came up empty on several attempts. Hey, I tried!) The Stanford Daily link came up dead, but I did a search and came up with the cache (no big deal, Google acts up like that sometimes). This is the closest that we've come to independent coverage, but with this and the brief Allmusic piece, I just don't think that is enough. For a group that is supposed to have had such an influence on their genre of music, there are precious few mentions. (By the way, the AllMusic book item is simply a duplicate of the item on the web site, or vice versa, so count that out.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. If we had these references to start with, or even after I asked the original author to provide them, I would have never pursued this in the first place. Not all the new references are applicable, but enough of them are to do the job. (BTW, how did you find these when I moved heaven and Google to fine something? Check that: I figured it out - most of the new refs are for Sugarman "Three," not "3" - D'oh!) I can't withdraw the AfD since technically I did not post it, but since I'm the main instigator, I'll ask the closing admin to do so. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're right, spelling out "three" was helpful for a few of the refs. Also, for obscure bands--comparatively speaking--I'll usually try several searches with a publisher's name included to see if I get lucky (e.g., "sugarman three" popmatters).  Gongshow Talk 01:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll file that away in the old bag o' tricks for future use. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - just to add to the consensus. Gongshow has improved the artist's article very well with the sources found by everyone during this debate. Then per precedent at WP:ALBUMS if the artist is notable then that helps the album articles. This is the type of outcome that I personally like to see in an AfD discussion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have been working on the album articles (will add cover images soon) and found that the band is known as BOTH "The Sugarman 3" and "The Sugarman Three", with both spellings appearing on their album covers. (Also, sometimes there is no "The".) Should this be mentioned in the band article? I can't figure out which is more common; if "Sugarman Three" is more common that might necessitate a Move but who knows. Is there a funk doctor in the house who can help with the true spelling of the band's name? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the band being referred to with either "3" or "Three" in the name. Even the website for the band's label uses both variations. I added a bit to the lead so both spellings are mentioned. I probably favor the "3" variation only because that's the spelling used for the band's most recent album, as well as their MySpace page, for what it's worth.  Gongshow Talk 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of horror films: 2010s

List of horror films: 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a crystal ball. Seems to be a dumping ground for "upcoming" movies, some of which are rumors and not even in production. Xsmasher (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be bolder and delete the mess! :) Warrah (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts cleaned up the article since only part of the content was inappropriate. Do you still want to delete the entire topic despite this cleanup? Erik (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:OSE. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about you learn to debate by saying what you mean instead of mis-using Wikispeak? Pointing to "OSE" in an AfD on one article out of a series of articles linked by year or decade is a spurious counter-argument. And while you're at it, read the "Directory" one you inappropriately use above to justify your vote. There is no rational way lists of notable film releases in a specific year and genre can be considered "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, Genealogical entries, The White or Yellow Pages, Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or resource[s] for conducting business, Sales catalogs, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, or A complete exposition of all possible details." If you get that through your head, my time spent looking at that inappropriate link and spurious argument will not have been in vain. Best regards and happy editing. Dekkappai (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is appropriate. It's unfortunate you felt compelled to resort to an ad hominem argument. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE says to consider precedent and consistency of similar articles. The preexisting lists show that this one is just the next in line. Surely there are issues with part of the content, but it is indisputable that there are already horror films for this decade. Erik (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not really. It says that reasoning should be applied to arguments. So if one is using OSE as an argument, one should explain why and not just state the fact. Similarly, in refuting a OSE argument, an explanation of why the OSE argument can be considered invalid should be provided. At least that's how I read it. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dekkappai used reasoning in his argument. He said that similar lists existed and that there are already released horror films this decade that justify the list. If all the unreleased films and red links are an issue, we can hack away at them, but that will still leave a set of released horror films that will no doubt grow throughout this decade. Erik (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A huge number of the entries are nothing but an attempt to end run WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL to talk about movies that are coming up, but haven't had significant coverage. At first glance, the article looks well sourced, until you look at the sources. Most are from 2 sources, dreadcentral.com and bloody-disgusting.com. I'm not convince either or both would pass as RS's. In all, it would be better served as a category rather than an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have lists by decade at List of horror films. There are already horror films that have come out for this decade so far. At the very least, the list is able to list films that have come out or films that are completed and are being promoted presently. Part of this topic's content is problematic, not the very topic itself. Erik (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, part of a Wikipedia essay on deletion debates, suggests that the fact that similar articles exist is not really a valid argument to keep a page. debate discussions ought to centre around consensus policy. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the relevant passage again: "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." The fact that multiple lists of horror films by decade exist provides "extremely important insight" on the discussion for this list article. The issue with the article is a clean-up issue. The precedent argument applies here to keep the list; we should focus our efforts on cleaning it up and maintaining it properly. Erik (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why not go through the article and remove the unsourced bits? AfD should not be used as your personal army. The ones being sourced by BD and DC wouldn't have anything to do with your decision, would it? —Mike Allen 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shouldn't such a list form a category rather than a stand alone article? See WP:CAT, which is Wikispeak for the Wikipedia guideline on the use of the categorization feature of the wiki software! Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category already exists: Category:2010s horror films. This does not mean a list is forbidden. We use lists for films all across the board; is there really a non-category reason why we should not have such a list? WP:CLN says, "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems." Erik (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the list article is only going to contain films already in Wikipedia, it is merely a duplicate of the category and, in my opinion, not necessary. If it includes films not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it serves its own purpose. But that raises the question - what's the point of a list with lots of "red links"? it serves no purpose, as by definition, the list can say very little about the contents therein. I'll stick with "delete", i think! Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I quoted above, the existence of a category does not forbid a list for the same set of films. In addition, if you think that some red links do not belong in the list, we can discuss removing them. However, you cannot dispute that there have been horror films released this decade so far and that there will inevitably be more horror films forthcoming. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Erik (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to the state of the article. There are already horror films that have come out this decade. At the very least, we should trim the problematic entries. It is common sense to assume that this decade will see more horror films. In addition, WP:CLN clearly states that the existence of a category does not forbid a list. Erik (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've now removed all redlinked titles that had no sources. Please feel free to prune any I've missed. I'll try to get RS for any unsourced blue-linked articles too. Hopefully this is the start of keeping this article. Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The presence of bad entries in a list (even lots of them) is not a good reason for deleting the list itself, so I think anything that cannot be properly sourced should be removed (which Lugnuts appears to have started on - nice work). Also, even if WP:CRYSTAL applies to some entries in the list, it does not apply to the list itself - there are some films in the list that have already been released, and there are certain to be a lot more -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_February_13&oldid=345123313"