Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 6

< 5 November	7 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No More Drama World Tour

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

Non-notable event Orange Mike | Talk 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs expansion, not deletion. There is significant coverage of the tour in media publications that could be used to add verifiable details. That coverage also shows notability. -- Atama頭 23:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Meza

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

Violates WP:AUTO and serves only as an anchor to advertise, in violation of WP:SPAM, the author's vanity press book, The Christ Literalist: Complete Quotes From The World's Most Renowned Revolutionary which itself violates WP:BK and is also up for deletion. The autobiography he's posted here fails WP:ENTERTAINER quite specifically on all grounds, as he is little more than a non-credited extra whose biggest role fails to meet the notability guideline for actors. Qworty (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book is nonnotable, per comments at its afd. Mr. Meza has one named role at imdb, in an indie film. im sure thats not enough for film notability. He would need a massive critical response to his limited roles, or his book, and there is no evidence that he is an up and coming film star or that his book has received critical attention. of course, good luck to him, but we cant help.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7, author has blanked the page. BlazerKnight (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community College Futures Assembly

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

Speedied once as advertorial and recreated. Two references, both passing mentions. One of them is just a namecheck. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - advertising for non-notable entity. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Orangemike. I've speedied this mess once already. TN X Man 19:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to have been much expanded, with several dozen references. Many are to papers given at the conference and published in what seems to be a major journal in the field, which are only indirectly relevant, but all in all, I think it's enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The dozen references don't seem to demonstrate notability. A huge number of them are from one source: "Community College Journal of Research and Practice". Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable entity, fails WP:ORG and WP:N; references assed are all from a single non-thirdparty source -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Christ Literalist: Complete Quotes From The World's Most Renowned Revolutionary

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

This entry is a WP:SPAM advert for a non-notable book that fails every element of WP:BK. It is, in fact, nothing more than a vanity press book which the author paid iUniverse to "publish." The article was created by a WP:SPA account that is involved in creating a self-promotional autobiography of the author, in blatant violation of WP:AUTO. Google hits for the vanity-press book that's being advertised by this article are only 71, and none of those meet WP:V in terms of WP:BK Qworty (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert for self-published book, fails every WP:BK. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. vanity press, all references in article are not relevant to book, google gives no notable hits. title is also heavily promoted at the authors article, which is also up for deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; no evidence of notability seen, yet, but I could change my mind; self-published books are rarely notable. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted after creator blanked the page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep -- Samir 08:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of current United States governors by age

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a directory, it's a WP:LIST. I think it meets the requirements of WP:LISTPURP. The title is probably a misnomer. It's a sortable list, and can be sorted by state, name (although in the format first-name, last-name, that's not too useful), date of inauguration, age at present or at inauguration, length of service, etc. It probably should be renamed. TJRC (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A valid list exists at List of current United States governors. We don't need separate ones for age, height, weight etc. -SpacemanSpiff 00:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one's suggesting height and weight, so those are red herrings. The one at issue here provides sorting by age, but also by useful information such as date of inauguration, length of term, etc. It seems somewhat misleadingly delete-worthy because of its misnomer title, which suggest that it is only sorted by age. TJRC (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's the case, a merge of the two necessary columns to the main list is good enough (and I am not opposed to that). -SpacemanSpiff 13:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i like having governors ages in the list, which can help a reader to understand the demographics of governors, which is not in the above mentioned list. however, this one seems to be extremely trivial in its detail (all the info on days and years/days is utterly trivial to my eye). i would support simply adding the governors ages to the above mentioned list, and deleting this as trivial and nonencyclopedic.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sortable table that provides additional information to supplement the sortable table in List of current United States governors. In some ways, it's superior to the other list (which allows the reader to sort the governors in alphabetical order by their first names, from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Tim Pawlenty, not terribly useful. The age and the length of service of a Governor is simply additional data. Ideally, the data from the tables should be combined into one, but a merger won't happen overnight. Mandsford (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given they are all notable, it's hardly a directory. The only thing is that the title should indicate the range of information: not just age, but Date of birth, Date of inauguration, Age at inauguration, Length of gubernatorial term to date. All in all, a very useful list, and useful is a relevant criteria for lists bringing together data like this. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had to agree about that days and years/days issue. I've edited the page to resemble most other age-sorting pages (U.S. presidents, Canadian prime ministers, etc) so that the days and years/days only appear in total lifespan. I also must say I did create this page with somewhat of a misnomer. Perhaps a move to a better title would be justified. Any suggestions? Bcperson89 (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP, DGG, and TJRC. This is clearly the sort of information that is useful for our primary audience of high school and college students, but also the general public. Otherwise, merge into List of current United States governors. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see WP:LISTPURP Vartanza (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in its entirety to List of current United States governors, although admittedly this is an editorial decision. The contents of the article deserve a place someplace within the encyclopedia. Although a spinout doesn't violate any guidelines, I think it would be more accessible from a centralized location. Them From Space 19:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep. NW (Talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Shafaat

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

The author appears to be neither notable as a mathematician nor as an Islamic scholar. Le Docteur (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find a current listing for him in the Concordia faculty and staff directory, although there are several older course listings that list him as instructor. He may have retired. His appointment was in the department of Decision Sciences and MIS in the business school at Concordia, rather than the mathematics department. Google Scholar has several entries for A Shafaat. The top two are cited by 12 and 10, respectively. A 2007 article in Asia Times quotes his writings from 1986 in this article. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS cites are negligible. However, there is a significant presence in Islamic culture that will have to addressed by those qualified. 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 October 2009
Comment. MathSciNet shows that he was active as a mathematician from 1963–1980. Most of his 30 papers have no citations (not counting self-citations), and the rest have few:
- "Principle of localization for a more general type of languages" (Proc. LMS 1967; MR 0218220) is referenced from one other paper, which shows that it was incorrect.
- "On the structure of certain idempotent semigroups" (Trans. AMS 1970, MR0258995) is referenced from the review of one other paper.
- "Lattices of subsemivarieties of certain varieties" (J. Aust. Math. Soc. 1971, MR0276158) is referenced from the review of one other paper.
- "Semivarieties of idempotent semigroups" (Proc. LMS 1971, MR0292967) has five citations.
- "The number of proper minimal quasivarieties of groupoids" (Proc. AMS 1975, MR0366783) has one citation.

I conclude that he has insufficient impact as a mathematician to pass WP:PROF and that any notability will have to be found elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is demonstrated by sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of third-party sources making a clear case for the notability of his religious writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not sure why this article has been deleted! I assume its elitisms by people who object to his modern tolerant interpretation of Islam. His academic back ground is unquestionable as it is fully documented. His books are available on Amazon for all to read. His views on Islam and religion are his and he is free to express them. His literature is widely available on the internet and his sermons are available in video on YouTube! You may not like what he has to say! You may not agree with him even, but you have no right to delete the article. It should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.33.135 (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet of nature

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

WP:NEO, does not appear to have any substantial usage. nneonneo ^talk 20:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. essay hung on neologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no substantial independent coverage by media. Anna Lincoln 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoCon

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a computer algebra system written in Haskell providing its functionality as a Haskell library to the user. Regardless of whether this is notable or not, this would appear to be a very brief article without context; apart from links, the quoted bit is the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

average non-exceptional, non-encyclopedic topic. on a tangent, I'll be surprised if anybody writes anything extremely useful in Haskell. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antidote of Realism EP

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

Placed article for discussion after PROD tag was removed without reason given. After some research into this and similar articles, I've been unable to find any apparent reliable third-party sources to use as references. There are no citations used in the article to suggest or affirm notability, and no Wikipedia articles extended or linking in appear to grant notability by legacy. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article only links to others within Wikipedia that seem to be of the same very narrow subject and scope, and give the appearance of a self-referencing group of bombardment articles maintained by the same limited number of editors. I decided to put a few articles up for discussion versus jumping to conclusions and trying to make a wider report. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This record was produced by a noted producer, features noted musicians and have been on the news of major media like blabbermouth.net which is enough for it to be noted and have also received reviews worldwide. i support to keep this article. The EP have been mentioned twice on news articles by blabbermouth.net as you can see here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=antidote+of+realism&x=53&y=7

and if you google for the title, several results show up linking it to different media websites. --Ntxdr (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: this album have received significant coverage and includes well known musicians and produced by a known producer so it must be kept.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!: i vote to keep this article. this is the first record of a noted band and it should be noted. it also features other noted musicians and is produced and mixed by a noted producer. it have also received reviews and several hits on download websites which shows that its got a huge following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.215.26 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Nothnegal the band is of questionable notability. There isn't even an entry for them on allmusic. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EPs do not inherit notability from the band, which is already questionable. Fails WP:NALBUM from what I can see. Significant coverage in third party sources is required here. Rehevkor ✉ 20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Sneck

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

Placed article for discussion after PROD tag was removed without reason given. After some research into this and similar articles, I've been unable to find any apparent reliable third-party sources to use as references. There are no citations used in the article to suggest or affirm notability, and no Wikipedia articles extended from here appear to grant notability by legacy. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article only links to others within Wikipedia that seem to be of the same very narrow subject and scope, and give the appearance of a self-referencing group of bombardment articles maintained by the same limited number of editors. I decided to put a few articles up for discussion versus jumping to conclusions and trying to make a wider report. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP —Marco Sneck is a musician who have been contributed to albums of bands like sentenced, play as the keyboard player of poisonblack, kalmah and most recently nothnegal. and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles he is a notable musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv head (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Disagreement over whether the article passes the notability guidelines or not. Davewild (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss India CT

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

contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero Google news hits. References provided appear to be either DVD sales sites or primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of these contests are not notable, especially qualifying completions for a crown. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added more 3rd party references Wikiuser7777 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of new references, now notable. Jeni ^(talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a local beauty contest in its first annual incarnation. The event is not-notable, sorry. Warrah (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or guideline that prohibits the creation of notable local events. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable event and the information should be made available for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellavida (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N. See this article from India Weekly, this article from Greenwich Time, and this article from The Stamford Times. Notability is established by the multiple independent reliable sources in the article. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Cunard, it passes WP:N. Wikiuser7777 (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those references provided do not show notability, and the references themselves do not pass the standard set in WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Goff

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

Article about a soap character with no references, no source, nothing. Only plot. Nor even when the character appeared. Magioladitis (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind360

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

I find no reliable independent sources for this company, nothing but press releases and things on the company's own web site. Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this qualifies as an independent source: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20091029/Cognitive-scores-deteriorate-with-age-Study.aspx User:graham234 13:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.156.213 (talk)

No, that's just another press release. Looie496 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking into this area for a while. they use a different method, that they invented. Worth looking at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny a2000 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this page and some others on the site, noteably Fit brains and Lumosity i can find no reason why mind360 should not be included in this public domain. Clifton (talk) 21:01, 04 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add balance I've added internal links to: Fit brains and Lumosity, and placed reciprocal links back. I vote all 3 pages be allowed to stay. Clifton (talk) 21:01, 04 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I can't find any coverage in reliable sources - the three existing articles are just press releases as Looie496 says. Clifton: articles which don't meet our notability guidelines are, by definition, unsuitable for Wikipedia. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya aka T6

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

Was tagged for speedy as a copyvio, but there was at least a bit that wasn't - I had to remove a lot of copyvio material from the article (which was all promotional anyway), but does this person pass WP:MUSIC? Black Kite 12:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMOTION for act that fails all twelve guidelines of WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS, can only find some blog coverage in GNEWS search. WP:COI evident from creator: see [1]. MuffledThud (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban Airways

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

I tagged this article for speedy deletion but self-reverted. Although the article is short on detail it does appear the band has released an album and played at various venues within its home nation (Norway), but there is virtually no reliable third party coverage. Unless notability is established, this article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Never heard of this pop group either, and the article needs development, but it does have some third-party coverage [2][3][4]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability. No prejudice against re-creating a non-stub article. Rehevkor ✉ 15:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Modern Electric

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

Not seeing a lot of independent coverage, but I'm taking to AfD and not speedy because they do show up on Rhapsody. One album released this year is not a lot of material. Shadowjams (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. If this is deleted, The Modern Electric (album) should be delete also. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find nothing that suggests this band meets WP:BAND as of yet. Agree with Joe Chill to delete the album as well. Gongshow ^Talk 05:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a review of this band on citizendick.org [5]. They are also on Itunes, Rhapsody, CDBaby, Digstation, Lala.com, and Last.fm. Here's a Cleveland newspaper article about them. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by FanaticCr (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus, with particular regard to the argument raised by Phil Bridger -- Samir 08:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sos and Victoria Petrosyans

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

It's a magic act with a few hits on youtube, but everything I see looks to have the same text, and this appears to be copied as well. Would require a fundamental rewrite and I'm not sure there are sources either. And a COI. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are 192 words about the subject in this local newspaper, an identical 56 words in these two magazines and a mention in the first sentence of this 337-word article in a regional newspaper, but, judging by the abstract available online, it doesn't seem that the whole article focuses on this subject. Google web and News searches in cyrillic only come up with passing mentions. I wouldn't consider this to be enough to show notability, but, as I have in recent days seen one article about a living person kept (and supported at deletion review) on the basis of 20 words in a university alumni publication, and another heading for deletion at AfD despite multiple book sources from reputable publishers being produced, including an 18-page chapter devoted to the subject, I really have no idea what the consensus is now for what constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would hesitate to gauge AfD's consensus on a few recent examples. There is a small contingent interested in keeping articles on the thinnest pretense. That shouldn't stop editors with the more longstanding view on the article from commenting to the contrary. There is a real value to WP:N. The number of active editors at any one time is finite, and as the article base grows those efforts are spread and quality declines. Sometimes a new article is worth more than a better article. But sometimes it is not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it shouldn't really make any difference to the outcome, as AfDs are supposed to be judged on the arguments, but I'll put put the word "delete" in bold, because just recently I've seen a tendency for discussions to be closed on a vote-counting basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Procedural vote, this should not have been relisted, it should have expired as delete two weeks ago. (but also, this is not notable, so delete it for that reason too.) Miami33139 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Positive Coaching Alliance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thompson (coach)

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Brief mentions here and there, but not enough significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources of biographical info about this person's life to warrant an article. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Positive Coaching Alliance as he's not notable independant of the organization he started. Them From Space 19:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Association des Veuves du Genocide

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

I found this article while patrolling WP:DUSTY, and prodded, but prod was removed by IP user... Article is about an organization, but makes absolutely no claims of any notable activities... Was unreferenced until said IP came along, but refs are only of the org's name mentioned in a book, no mention of notable activities... no signs of passing WP:ORG... Adolphus79 (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Under each of your links to "find sources" there are large numbers of international mentions of the group. It is a prominent NGO working on issues related to the people harmed by the Rwandan genocide, it has a presence internationally being directly referred to by the Swedish government (as already linked in the article),the UN and many books and newspaper articles in English even though it operates in French and is most well known in France. It is THE principal[7] organization for survivors in Rwanda. 99.151.170.150 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that source is saying that IBUKA is the principal survivors' organization, not AVEGA. (We don't appear to have an article on IBUKA, but it's discussed at Rwandan Survivors.) However, I do believe that AVEGA is notable; when I get a chance to look through the sources, I'll write up a keep rationale. --Chris Johnson (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of mentions, but nothing I could find that would be considered substantial coverage, no articles solely about the organization... There are a lot of mere mentions, and none that I saw made any mention of the organization's activities... Show me a reliable source that has isgnificant coverage of this organization and it's activities (enough to cover WP:V and WP:ORG concerns), and I'll consider changing my mind... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that being mentioned on 100 pages of a book is pretty substantial, and that's just what I could find in about half a minute. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: The English name of the ORG is Association of Genocide Widows which brings up more hits and mentions, but all of them appear to be from the 90s or early 2000s. The copyright date on their webpage is 2006. The organization may be defunct. GreyWyvern^⚒ 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not defunct. Some brief press mentions from this year: [8], [9], [10]. --Chris Johnson (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some better searches: News, Books and Scholar. Efforts to sell their baskets, including a deal with Macy's, have received attention: [11], [12], [13]. A study they did of the prevalence of AIDS among survivors also got news coverage: [14], [15]. A protest they held: [16]. This story largely focuses on on the of founders. A lot of the short references to the organization are quite informative (e.g., their entry in the Dictionary of Genocide). Phil Bridger's source looks really good too. There's more than enough verifiable information in very good (often academic) sources to write an encyclopedia article. I believe there's a WP:CSB issue here; while this level of coverage might be borderline for an American or European organization, it's rather impressive for an organization in Francophone Africa. --Chris Johnson (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now see, this is what I was talking about, sources to show what they have done that would be notable... I was not purposely trying to be biased, if the same organization had been in America, with as little sources as I could find, I would have just as quickly put it up for AfD... The innumerous mentions in the papers and books are one thing, but nothing that I could find showed anything in the way of notable activities... I have had my name mentioned in several newspapers throughout my life, but that alone does not make me notable... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't saying you were being biased; I have no problem with your nomination and hope this leads to a better article on the group. I was talking about systematic bias in available sources (particularly web-accessible sources). Given two organizations of equal "importance", one in the US and one in Africa, the one in the US will almost certainly get substantially more coverage. I think it's worth grading notability "on a curve" when it comes to subjects in the developing world. --Chris Johnson (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments - there are references there, and I know from experience that African topics experience less "mainstream" coverage than others, but we should not use the level of difficulty in finding refs as a benchmark for how notable it is. SteveRwanda (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TechTeam Akela

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

No multiple, independent sources demonstrate notability. They do have an Internet presence, but it seems to be exclusively press releases, their own site, job postings, videos, and the like. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, non-notable. Dahn (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus default to keep -- Samir 08:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Orvetti

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

Notability Romrem04 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I have to concur that the biography doesn't appear to be notable, as most of the references are from his own website and the other mentions were done in passing. Weak delete because there might be some notability associated with his appearance on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Them From Space 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At first blush, it may seem this person isn't notable, but I particularly remember his website from the 2000 elections. I added a ref to a 2000 Wired article which discusses him, and will look for more. This article has existed for over 4 years, but never got the improvement it needed.--Milowent (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Milowent. Also note that he has written for multiple notable media outlets.--JayJasper (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Label Records

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

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Speedway

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines. It has been marked for notability concerns for a year, and nothing has been done to address the issue. Geraldk (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while there is no formal guideline to notability for racecourses, generally a track is notable if it has ever hosted a touring professional series of some sort, which this track has not. -Drdisque (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Drdisque. Anna Lincoln 21:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Bramlette

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

Article has content about the person as well as the company. Neither have reliable sources to back up claims, nor to indicate notability. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon edits from user, it seems [17] like they want this deleted, but who knows? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest prehistoric organisms

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

Any interesting content on this page should be in Largest_organisms, since in cases where the largest organism in a category is extant, the largest prehistoric one will pretty much always just be a recently extinct close relative. This page feels like a fork of Largest_organisms, anyway. Nothing seems to link to this article, and some of the content is just wrong. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Differs considerably from Largest organisms on which many categories default to the largest living example, whereas the nom'd article abandons this restriction. Definitely needs better referencing, but it's a good start. GreyWyvern^⚒ 23:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest organisms can, and in many cases does, mention the extinct taxa if the extant one is not the largest in the category. IOW, there is no such restriction. Are any animals in Largest prehistoric organisms larger than _any_ mentioned in Largest organisms? If so, let's put them in Largest organisms! Moreover, in cases where the largest *is* extant, picking some other large prehistoric taxa for Largest prehistoric organisms is just silly - eg, Basilosaurus is listed as the largest prehistoric whale, although it is of course not the largest prehistoric whale. The largest would just be some recently extinct baleen whale that is arbitrarily closely related to blue whales, and it isn't interesting to say this in addition to what is already in Largest organisms - this is going to be true for every case where the largest in the category is extant. I could just fix this by removing basilosaurus et all, but if I kept doing that I'd just be left with a page that is trivially different from Largest organisms, with all the obvious problems of two nearly identical pages. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That largest organisms mentions extinct taxa doesn't make LPO a POV fork. While there is mention of extinct taxa in largest organisms, a good solution would be to rework LO to cover modern taxa only and have LPO cover the fossil taxa. Regarding the Basilosaurus argument, its a strawman at best. Currently it IS the largest prehistoric cetacean. IF fossils are described that are bigger then the article can be updated to reflect the change. Arguing for possibilities does not work. there are a number of cases where the modern taxa are much smaller then the extinct relatives see monotremes and many insect orders.--Kevmin (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"POV fork"? What do you mean? "Currently it (Basilosaurus) IS the largest" But it isn't. There is no doubt _at all_ that there where cetaceans living in prehistoric times that were far larger than Basilosaurus. And this will be 100% true for all cases where the largest in a category is extant - unless we have witnessed the evolution to record sizes in historic times? Maybe largest cat - liger? :) Perhaps the intent here was to list, for each category, the completely extinct genus that contains the largest specimen that does not belong to an extant genus? (Or family instead of genus?) But this is hard to define and in any case is going to be totally arbitrary (should it be family? genus? these ranks are arbitrary to begin with!) - this is the heart of my complaint about this page; this is not both a well defined and meaningful list. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And until you suggested extinct blue whale relative is found, studied, and published, it is as reasonable as saying invisible pink unicorns run wikipedia. There is every possibility those species/genrea will NEVER be found, thus complaining because the page accurately states that the currently know largest Cetacean is Basilosaurus (note species/genus names are written with italics), is an appeal to the unknown. It is also very possible that the expansion in size was until after the last iceage, thus fitting into your definition of record size growth in modern history. that the The list as defined by the use of the term prehistoric is for taxa which existed prior to modern times, read fossil in most cases. Yes the scope is vague right now, but it is much easier to define that scope given the title then to nuke it completely. --Kevmin (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is also very possible that the expansion in size was until after the last iceage" - No, no I don't think this is possible :) I don't think blue whales grew 2x longer and 10-20x heavier in a couple thousand years! "it is much easier to define that scope" - Can you do it? I can't imagine how to make this list a well defined and still an interesting one. I really can't. If I could, I would be working on the page rather than here. The concept might have sounded interesting at first, but it just isn't a valid one. ErikHaugen (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain how defining the scope is not easy, the title has already done it: Prehistoric. Thus extinctions by man are out, leaving organisms the existed but are extinct now, known from only subfossil to fossil remains. Largest organisms now extinct due to humans should be coevered in largest organisms. Ill not address the Basilosaurus issue here, as it is the wrong place, bring it up at Basilosaurus or a similar page and we can discuss there.--Kevmin (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point - the largest prehistoric organisms are the largest organisms around today, since no organism became significantly larger since prehistoric times. (Can you think of an example? Maybe some animal that was bred to be larger?) I _think_ the intent of this page is probably something along the lines of "the extinct genus/family in a given category with the largest species" or something - but this is very vague and arbitrary. Can you nail this down to make it an interesting distinction? This discussion should not be moved to Basilosaurus, because it really doesn't have anything to do with Basilosaurus - the point of discussing Basilosaurus here is because this is an example of how an attempt to make a list of largest prehistoric organisms that is distinct from Largest organisms is futile. ErikHaugen (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"there are a number of cases where the modern taxa are much smaller" - again, as I have said many times, these can be/are in Largest organisms. You know, because they're the largest. We already have a page that says "The largest extant monotreme is the Western Long-beaked Echidna weighing up to 16.5 kg (36.4 lb) and measuring 1 m (3.3 ft) long.[10] The largest monotreme (egg-bearing mammal) ever was the extinct echidna species Zaglossus hacketti, known only from a few bones found in Western Australia. It was the size of a sheep, weighing probably up to 100 kg (220 lb)." Why do we also need one that says: "The largest monotreme (egg-laying) mammal ever was the extinct long-beaked echidna species Zaglossus hacketti, known from a couple of bones found in Western Australia. It was the size of a sheep, weighing probably up to 100 kg (220 lb)." duplicated content is suboptimal. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I already suggested, define Largest organisms to cover modern taxa (living or extinct within modern times), and move the extinct(prehistoric/fossil) taxa information to this page, simple and no duplication. --Kevmin (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that would be a radical change. Largest Organisms should contain a list of the largest organisms. This is why it is called "Largest organisms", and that is what it is. Additionally, your plan would mean there is no page that lists the largest organisms, which I think is pretty clearly more interesting, and well defined, than either of the pages you suggest. ErikHaugen (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per GreyWyvern. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 00:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has a different much more limited scope then Largest oragnisms. I will agree completly that there need to be major improvements to referencing.--Kevmin (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When I wrote the article I was only 5 months old (in Wiki years), so it diffidently requires a cleanup and references, but if all the content were moved to Largest organisms, it would not be nearly as detailed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it more detailed then! ErikHaugen (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Largest organisms is already too long and is marked for splitting. It does not need more text.--The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is really necessary, I would suggest a more useful split - say along major taxonomic categories (vertebrates, etc). In any case Largest organisms tries to list prehistoric taxa where appropriate - as the name Largest organisms suggests - so that page should be totally reworked/renamed if you want to keep LPO. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are fungal colonies and cloned tree groves, very large, which may date back before human history. they should be included as well. i support adding any unique content here to largest organisms. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fungal and clonal colonies are actually already in the largest organisms article.--Kevmin (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that Largest Organisms has been tagged to be split into smaller articles since June of this year, so adding content to the page seems like setting the stage for just splitting it out again if someone gets around to breaking out material into smaller articles.--Kevmin (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Largest organisms is already a 94 KB article, so I see no advantage in adding a section on largest extinct organisms. I note that the nominator has pointed out at least one inaccuracy that should be corrected, and it's good to have input from someone knowledgable on the subject. Mandsford (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It already contains this information where appropriate; it isn't in its own section. The inaccuracy can't be fixed without making this page just like Largest organisms, as far as I can tell. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. However, since it doesn't look like this article will be deleted, then whatever inaccuracies may exist can be pointed out, even if someone else makes the corrections. It's been brought up that the article "says the largest extinct whale was basilosaurus, but obviously some recently extinct baleen whales are going to be a whole lot bigger than basilosaurus was", so that's at least one section to fix. On the other hand, the only stat I can find so far on an extinct baleen whale is for Eobalaenoptera harrisoni, which left an 11 meter long skeleton, while the source for Basilosaurus refers to something larger; Anyway, it's something for people to look for. Mandsford (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't actually any inconsistency in the article at this point. The Basilosaurus/blue whale discussion is referring to hypothetical predecessors of the modern blue whale which would have been larger then Basilosaurus. However those predecessors have not been found/described yet, and as such any changes based on them is nothing but crystalballing. If/when they are described then and only then should the article be updated. --Kevmin (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But blue whales were around in prehistoric times, and they were just as big as they are now. This isn't "crystalballing". Every category on this page where extant animals are largest suffers from this problem. No crystal balls needed. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provider a reliable, verifiable, peer reviewed, citations to the taxonomic descriptions of these species. Without these citations you are crystalballing.--Kevmin (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, for blue whale? Blue whale seems pretty well documented? Or are you saying that it's controversial that blue whales were the same size a few thousand years ago? I'm missing your point, or you're missing mine. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm understanding Erik's point, or at least one main point, now. He's right. We tend to think of "prehistoric = dinosaurs", but strictly speaking, prehistoric times ended only a few thousand years ago, and blue whales, rather than basilosaurus, are the largest "prehistoric organisms" as well as the largest modern day organisms. It would be more accurate to call this Largest extinct organisms. We can argue over the definition of prehistoric, but extinct isn't really ambiguous. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunatly extinct ataully takes in more organisms then prehistoric. Golden toad, Dodo, Steller's Sea Cow and Baiji all are extinct but not prehistoric. --Kevmin (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those are examples of "largest" toad, bird, dolphin, etc., I'm not sure how that would apply. Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dodos were the largest of the pigeon order (Columbiformes) to have lived. Moas and elephant birds were the largest birds to have lived. The Steller's Sea Cow was the largest sirenian to have lived. All were extirpated due to human activity in modern times. --Kevmin (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fine article on a notable topic; disagree with arguments for merging; no good reason given for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Largest prehistoric organisms" currently lists organisms known from specific fossils, rather than organisms that we can reasonably infer existed based on extant creatures. Undiscovered extinct rorquals surely grew larger than fossil whales, but wouldn't be something that we could list in a separate article. In any case, I've now edited the article to cite references that describe fossil whales bigger than Basilosaurus.

Regardless of what happens to "Largest prehistoric organisms", I oppose restricting the "Largest organisms" article to extant organisms only. I think it's a mistake to consistently confine fossil creatures to the ghetto of a separate article, because it implies that prehistoric life is an aberration from extant life, while in fact the present is just a moment in an unfolding story. Each group should be understood as having a long evolutionary history, and a range of body sizes that vary throughout that history.

Nevertheless, a separate article about the largest fossil organisms can be useful, especially when the largest extinct representative of a group is smaller than the largest extant representative, because it tells us something about the development of the group.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Lebanon

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

fails WP:GNG. Available references are entirely limited (in my searches) to the GPL website and some blogs announcing that it has been founded. The party has won no seats in any election that I can find, and appears to be effectively a fringe party. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a Google translation of a search on the party's Arabic name, which I think gives enough references to establish notability. This is an English-language newspaper article. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added several newspaper references. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep the glp, is a pioneering parrty, the first green party in lebsnon,it may have the clearest agenda of all lebanese parties, eventhough it is still a young one, it is very socially active and is heavily campaining for environmrntal and development causes. the fact that it did not win any seats in the elections isa mere detail. could user:ironhead please let us know how he decided that the subject is not notable, personally i find this nomination for deletion silly Eli + 06:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eli+. Eklipse (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note organization notability criteria " Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." there are ample examples of national media taking interrest in the party as user eastmain pointed out Eli + 08:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received sufficient depth of coverage in multiple national sources in English and Arabic to consider the party notable. Fences&Windows 15:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by a more than average number of sources for a Lebanese political party article. As for the nominator's claim about seats in parliament, notability has nothing to do with political representation: by that logic, the Lebanese Communist Party, the American Constitution Party, and Canadian Green Party should all be deleted. Mnation2 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from personal experience (I have not checked online) they have extensive coverage in the media. I do pity them though - trying to convince the Lebanese to stop hunting and littering is a hard task. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy G7. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Marie James

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER. We need a counterpart to WP:HAMMER for this; if your appearances are entirely limited to background roles and single episodes, you probably aren't notable. Ironholds (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ElectrEm

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable sources to show notability. The only reference provided is the website of the maker of the software. The original Acorn Electron processor seems notable, and we have an article on it. There is already a link to ElectrEm from Acorn Electron and that seems to be sufficient recognition, given that one is better known than the other. Except for the fact that ElectrEm can still be found at a number of download sites, there's little evidence that anyone still takes note of it. Certainly there are no third-party sources from which any detailed commentary could be provided. A search of magazine articles from the 1980s might conceivably come up with something. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dtach

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN significantly undersourced and not likely to be the kind of thing useful in the future. Miami33139 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Also shows some author bias in: what the developer (Ned T. Crigler) considers to be unneeded features. GreyWyvern^⚒ 22:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out that that phrase was in my original article, and I'm not Ned, so it can't be author bias... --Gwern (contribs) 23:58 6 November 2009 (GMT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative reforms against terrorism

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

The unsourced text and title relates to a non-existent concept, repeated on pages that link to this page. Measures that have been taken in Turkey to fight terrorism are covered on separate pages, some of which can be found in the Category:Law_enforcement_in_Turkey Sc.helm (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article contains one reference, not really notable. Rirunmot 12:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources, and so it doesn't have to be relisted again and again. If anyone cared, they'd have come to save it by now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. From only one source springs forth this fount of information? I think not. GreyWyvern^⚒ 23:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Anna Lincoln 21:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Author request. NW (Talk) 19:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moukheiber Al Achkar

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

I can't find any sources that suggest he passes WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Zynth

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

Non-notable band... does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO... Adolphus79 (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources in the article and [18], [19], and [20]. Blogcritics does have blog in the name, but it is a reliable source. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author Keep Several reviews linked in article at time of creation. Chubbles (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, no shortage of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry, somehow I missed the list of reviews at the bottom of the page... without that they appear to fail WP:MUSICBIO concerns, but if other editors feel that is multiple and non-trivial enough to pass said concerns, I have no problem with withdrawing nomination... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Nettles

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

There's alot in there, but really he was just a good college player who isn't particularly notable professionally. For a college player to be notable, he has to be something special (like Stephen Strasburg. Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite I have seen pages with much less (example: Tyler Ladendorf) and as I read it he is more than a college player, he played professionally. The styling of the page (example: infobox, sections, external links) is odd so it should be fixed to fit the regular format, whatever that may be. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just suggested that Ladendorf's page should be merged into Oakland Athletics minor league players. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is 29 years old and has never played in a MLB game, not notable.--Yankees10 00:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of his career is in independent leagues, no AAA appearances in affiliated leagues... nothing notable. Spanneraol (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Herr

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

He exists, there are a couple minor sources, but he doesn't meet the notability of a baseball player, as he did not make the major leagues, play in any of the major Asian leagues, or play internationally. Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See WP:WPBB/N, I think he fits well into that last bullet. I think it's borderline, but there seems to be sufficient second party sources. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reason he has an article is because he is Tom Herrs son, hes not notable otherwise.--Yankees10 00:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant time in AAA, which meets my requirements for inclusion. Enough sources about this player to satisfy notability requirements. Spanneraol (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, since when does playing in AAA make a player notable?--Yankees10 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always considered players with more than one season at AAA to be notable... it used to be our policy but it was changed. It remains my opinion. Spanneraol (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess since WP:ATHLETE...he is a "professional" is he not? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And he isn't just a AAA player, but a AAA All-Star. Spanneraol (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every single player in A ball are professional too, so Brian what you are saying is they are notable too. I dont think so.--Yankees10 01:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, WP:ATHLETE is. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are clearly mistaken. Not every player in A ball are notable.--Yankees10 16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not, WP:ATHLETE is. I'm following its guidelines, because that is consensus. I don't think we should be pushing what we feel is notability. If you have a problem, you should take it up on the talk page. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. International League All-Star at AAA in 2007. Also meets the general notability guideline: Interview in the Springfield News-Leader, full profiles in the Lancaster New Era, Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, Niagra Gazette, a partial profile in the Myrtle Beach Sun News, etc. More as well, if needed, but that should be plenty, IMO. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently meets the GNG; sometimes famous names generate the level of coverage satisfying notability when others without family connections are ignored. Sometimes notability's just not fair. Paris Hilton. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and incorporate the stories Juliancolton dug up, maybe delete some of the many stat links in the article. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Machi

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

Non-notable baseball player in the minor leagues Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Triple-A player is notable. Again to my point of, WP:WPBB/N. He fits well into the last bullet. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players--Yankees10 00:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players--Spanneraol (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Rifkin

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

He exists, and there are a few press releases from minor league teams he has played for cited in the article. But he is a career minor leaguer, which means he's not notable. He's at that age where it's clear he'll never make it to the Big Show. Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite This page is a mess, sure, but it still meets WP:WPBB/N. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per Halvorsen. Clearly meets WP:WPBB/N in that he is a minor league player and the article "cite(s) published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is 30 years old, slim chance of making the majors, not notable unless he does so--Yankees10 00:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should really see WP:ATHLETE and WP:WPBB/N, no where does it say "below the age of 30." --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my point. I said the chance of him making the Majors is slim because he is over the age of 30.--Yankees10 02:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Y10. Congrats on the WS. I think what Brian is pointing to is that for purposes of WP notabity, the test is not that he make the majors. It is sufficient under those guidances for if the article "cite(s) published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Which it does.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources cited satisfy notability requirements. Spanneraol (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATH and WP:WPBB/N easy. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, per sources in the article. Even without them, was league MVP in the Midwest League in 2001, and as such would be sufficiently notable anyway. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to meeting last part of WP:WPBB/N, therefore meeting WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. had already been done Wizardman 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Lugo

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

Non-notable athlete, but maybe should be merged into Minnesota Twins minor league players Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets notability guidelines with WP:WPBB/N. A search of him brings up plenty of reliable second party sources. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Twins minor league players page.--Yankees10 00:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Minnesota Twins minor league players. -- Spanneraol (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D-rap

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

Unsourced neologism by non-notable Youtube celebrity. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Saw this article, and thought the same thing. :) No real sources and seems to be a WP:NEO. Athe Weatherman 20:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - one of a horde of nonsense articles created by this account. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be closed as snowball delete, then? A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 15:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per everyone else avobe. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 19:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a Snow Delete may be in order. Hmm? Not really much more to add, so just per the above reasons, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really just started an AFD here because I couldn't find an appropriate CSD tag and my experience is that PRODs aren't really effective. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Sal Moslehian

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

Delete - fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF. Note article was apparently created by its subject: [21]. TJRC (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same editor also created Banach Journal of Mathematical Analysis. I cleaned it up, but that just leaves the barest of stubs. Anybody any idea whether this journal is notable? --Crusio (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. MathSciNet lists 85 publications by him, so he certainly is prolific, but none seem to be in prestigious and selective journals. The citation hits in MathSciNet are 16, 10, 10, 6, 6, 6 (and tapering off after that) which which seems rather low for such a long publication list. On balance, probably not enough here to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Kinoq (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Sophie!

New article created by a new user. Notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 19:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Lizarraga

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

Minor league player who spent the entire 2009 season in the Mexican League, does not appear to be a prospect. I question his notability Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to pass WP:WPBB/N. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:WPBB/N. Has apparently never played in any of the major or defunct leagues listed there. Onla has played in the minors. Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. No indicia of notability to overcome that. User:Halvorsen brian, what are you seeing here that I'm not? TJRC (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WPBB/N states, "...cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are plenty of hits on a Google News Search. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But all of those hits appear to be just of the type not considered under WP:NOTNEWS. Certainly, minor league games get coverage in their local cities, and the players names are mentioned. That doesn't amount to notability. TJRC (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you're saying. WP:NOTNEWS has nothing to do with what I said, WP:NOTNEWS states "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." He is beyond just one event and one source. Regardless, he meets WP:ATHLETE. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your contention is that any minor league player who gets news coverage for playing in more than one minor league game meets notability requirements? TJRC (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My contention? WP:WPBB/N and WP:ATHLETE agree. What is it with wanting to delete MiLB players? He meets requirements, that's it. I can understand if its a MiLB player from 1903 who played for three seasons with no stat records anywhere but this is different. There are plenty of MiLB players with less experience than Lizarraga on Wiki. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not about a player playing in more than one game, Lizarraga has played 259 games. Lets stay on topic. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, please, I'm just trying to understand your argument. Are you really saying that news reports of games are sufficient to meet the notability requirement? I don't want to critique that position if it's a strawman. As far as the point that there are players with less experience, that's essentially a WP:WAX argument; and is as much as an argument that those articles should be deleted as it is that this article should be retained. TJRC (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down? You shouldn't accuse me of making a judgement based upon my views. The reason I said Keep was because he meets WP:WPBB/N and WP:ATHLETE. I can't see a good reason for deleting him. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "So your contention is that any minor league player who gets news coverage for playing in more than one minor league game meets notability requirements?" is a WP:WAX as well. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm stepping out of this discussion. I've obviously upset you. My apologies, that wasn't my intent. I think my position is clear above, I won't be participating further in the AfD. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok...I really don't get where you say I'm "upset." On one occasion I had to defend myself against an accusation and maybe you were looking for me to be upset. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable minor league player--Yankees10 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though I created this page, I'm gonna say delete because he is not currently playing for an affiliated team and doesn't seem likely to in the future. Spanneraol (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Show won major award. Joe Chill (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On That Point

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

I can't find significant coverage for this student run show. Joe Chill (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Many of the arguments presented in favor of retaining the page are weak and lack citations to appropriate policy, hence no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law practice management

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

I don't see this as an encyclopedia article really - author gave reason for creation as "bring together as many resources as possible to help attorneys control their practices ...", and article says the term "has no set definition". Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Practice of law. This would make sense IMHO. --Edcolins (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is in drastic need of cleanup, obviously, but is a start on an article on an encyclopedic topic. Do not merge to Practice of law. That article deals with the practice of law, i.e. the legal restrictions on becoming an attorney and practicing as an attorney. This article deals with management of a legal office. They are distinct topics. TJRC (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't indicate that management of a legal office is fundamentally different from business management in general, most of the "elements of Law Practice Management" listed (recruitment, training and development, software management etc) would apply to virtually all types of business. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has a few things that are unique to law practice management: client trust funds and the issue non-attorney membership, for example. I ~~agree~~ concede, it doesn't cover these well, and I ~~agree~~ concede, the article needs dramatic improvement. It could cover IOLTA requirements; malpractice insurance; MCLE requirements; docketing, and more. But that's a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. TJRC (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying it needed improvement, I was questioning whether it's an article topic in its own right. Most of the items you mention it could cover already have their own articles. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you. You're saying it merits deletion. I'm saying it needs improvement. My error, I used "agree" above, where the correct word is probably "concede." TJRC (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the article doesn't even have anything to stub it with. IOLTA can be covered in IOLTA. Delete without prejudice to creation of a real article. THF (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I don't see this as a nomination really as the steps described in our deletion process clearly have not been followed. There isn't a discussion page for the article and so local discussion does not seem to have been tried yet. And there are numerous books devoted entirely to this topic so it has great notability. The action required is improvement in accordance with our editing policy. This discussion is not it and so should be terminated forthwith. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I initially raised it at the content noticeboard, as it overwrote an existing redirect to a magazine which was formerly called Law Practice Management. I only got one response, a suggestion that this article be moved to a lower-case title so it could be separated from the redirect, which was taken up.

I don't think that something being the subject for a book automatically means it should be a subject for an article, as books are not always about one single topic but can be various topics grouped together for a particular interest group, plus my quick search suggests books on this subject are generally "how-to" type guides. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I see an article X that starts off "The subject of X has no set definition," I suspect that the article can be safely deleted unless/until someone figures out what the article is about. That is, if the article's creator and subsequent editors don't even know what the topic is, they're not likely to be able to write a useful article. A title like "Law practice management" is so vague that about all that can be written is a how-to guide, and that's one of the things that WP is not. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous topics for which there is no exact definition such as Philosophy, Science fiction, Dark energy or Stupidity but this is no bar to our writing about them. In this case, the previous authors had done creditable job of assembling definitions from a variety of sources. This perhaps needed some consolidation, which I have done, but is no reason to delete. Your opinion that the matter can only be written in a certain way seems presumptious as it appears that you don't even know what the topic is. I understand the topic very well and so can assure you that it is easy to write upon in our preferred style. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title is self-explanatary, WP:NOTHOWTO is probably the main issue here as the article is still a how-to guide even after the amendments. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is not written in a how-to style as it lacks step-by-step instructions, exercises and worked examples. In any case, that would not be a reason to delete as it would be just a matter of style and so best remedied by rewriting in accordance with our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup and so such stylistic concerns are best discussed on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click Google news search, then Google book search up top. Some of those seem credible references don't they? The American Bar Association has what they call Law Practice Management, and have a section just for it on their official website. [22] Dream Focus 09:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David García Mitogo

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

Did not play in any fully-professional league and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Prod request removed by an IP user. Geregen2 (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJRC (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have we established that the third level of Spanish football isn't professional? Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues should list the top lower-level league that isn't professional. Nfitz (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG Spiderone 15:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted fails both WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shiply

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to "Shiply Limited ". Was speedied previously as Spam advertising under WP:CSD#G11. Has a few links but they seem to be self linked, puff pieces, press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as articles. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a very fast growing company that are all over the newspapers, tv and radio in the UK. I think to delete the entry would be a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.132.229 (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC) — 94.194.132.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Shiply is a clone of uShip.com. Agree with above Nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as articles.

Delete - As of yet the subject appear to lack significant coverage. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shiply is one of the fastest growing Internet sites in the UK and has a very innovative business idea. Therefore deleting the entry will be a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducga (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC) — Ducga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - founder Robert Matthams has been announced as Young Entrepreneur of the year. Lots of very significant press coverage - http://www.shiply.com/docs/press.php. Comments to delete come from a competitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.146.91 (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC) — 188.220.146.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu Houses

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

Some rather legitimate concerns were raised by Mattisse on the talk page:

“

I agree. Mason invented the Xanadu House, a specific example of a hi-tech house, and promoted it via his 1983 book. The promotion was picked up at the time and mentioned in a few places, including a business publication and apparently was promoted as a tourist attraction. However, there is no evicence of an enduring effect of the Xanadu House concept. Are there any mentions in architectural reviews? Any recent mentions that the Xanadu House plans are even remembered? Is it still a tourist attraction? Are the three houses still standing? I have modern architectural reviews of the period that do not mention it. The two "Further reading" books appear to deal with how technology affects the economy, rather than addressing specifically the effect of Xanadu House.

”

I agree with every word in Mattisse' argument. Of the 18 refs in the article, only #7 seems to be non-trivial secondary coverage, but even then it seems to be only in the wake of Mason's promotion. Indeed, these houses seem to have gotten only a brief flurry of news coverage after their construction, and none whatsoever after the fact.

Yes, I am entirely aware of that shiny gold star at the top right of the article, but I'm also aware of the {{Primary sources}} tag that has been up since August, which screams "Obviously not featured content." The fact that it took four years for anyone to notice its questionable notability is immaterial — I have every reason to believe that this subject's notability is almost nonexistant, and obviously I'm not alone in that department. (As a post-script, featured content has been deleted or merged in the past.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting one. I'll start with a summary demote from FA status because TPH and Matisse are clearly correct about that. The article was promoted to FA in 2005, and it definitely doesn't meet current standards.
However, I do not share the notability concern. If something was ever notable, then it's notable forever; a well-established principle on Wikipedia is that notability is not temporary. And Wikipedia contains information about all kinds of topics of purely historical interest, which is as it should be.
I agree that there are no recent mentions, but who cares? That has nothing to do with our deletion criteria, which is also as it should be. The sources exist, they are checkable and they are cited, and that suffices.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already listed it at FAR, but Sandy Georgia deleted my FAR subpage because I had already placed another FAR only a couple days ago. Stupid rule. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no such thing as a summary demote from FA status; second, WP:NN is quite distinct from WP:WIAFA. The question here is whether the article meets notability, not whether it warrants FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a drama-reduction measure, rather than answer this here, I'll simply nominate it for FAR myself.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would solve one problem, but for it to go to FAR with a completely unsubstantiated notability tag isn't quite right :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, hold up. AFD or FAR, not both. Let's play this out, then see if it gets kept. With two editors doubting the notability, I don't think the {{notability}} tag is unsubstantiated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After considering Ten Pound Hammer's good faith request on my talk page I have retracted the FAR.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Library of Congress holds a copy of the book, Xanadu : the computerized home of tomorrow and how it can be yours today! Obviously they think the topic is important. --Sift&Winnow 18:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that it's a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to stay on topic. The fact that LOC owns a copy of the book says that the subject of Xanadu houses is notable. --Sift&Winnow 19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep- I have no comment on the featured article status of the article, that's a bit over my pay grade. That said, I think there's enough there for an article on the subject. Umbralcorax (talk)
Comment: I found some news coverage that doesn't seem to be cited in the article: [23] (this one could be used for some of the claims in the "Demise" section), [24], [25], [26]. A decent number of mentions in various books, some several pages long. --Chris Johnson (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a feminist critique of the smart home that discusses Xanadu along with two other smart home concepts. According to Google Scholar versions of this paper have been published in a few places, and one of them's fairly well-cited. --Chris Johnson (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, clearly notable per above feedback. The AFD should be speedy closed so other issues can be addressed at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks to be an especially well-written and well-sourced article complete with relevant images (though I didn't check whether they were free or not). Whether or not it qualifies as a good article or featured article is another question. The fact that an article does draw from primary sources is insufficient reason for deletion of such an evolved article. Robert K S (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combs Field Airport

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

This airport no longer exists. The former airport's FAA code has been reassigned to a heliport at a hospital complex. The former airport is not sufficiently notable to be saved as a "former airport". The heliport at the current hospital complex is not sufficiently notable to convert the airport article to a heliport article. Therefore, I believe the best alternative is to simply delete the article. Canglesea (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or rename to "Norton Audubon Hospital Heliport" (source) if some notability can be established (which I doubt). The Heliport has the same FAA code as the former airport. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Notability is not temporary. I don't know what sort of guidelines there are for airports, but if defunct licensed radio stations are notable enough for inclusion I don't see why an airport wouldn't qualify as well riffic (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, neither the former airport nor the heliport are notable, so the point you make is somewhat moot. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're saying it's not notable but are not presenting any evidence or guidelines that cover airports, so your point is also moot. riffic (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability of airports, see draft guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability. This private airport was not notable when the article was written and has deteriorated from there. - Canglesea (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There may be some confusion here. I found references to Paintsville-Prestonsburg-Combs Field Airport, airport code 9KY9, former code 3I6, which seems to exist but does not yet have a Wikipedia article. Perhaps this article ought to be moved to that location. See this reference: On June 6, 2005, at 1800 eastern daylight time, a 1966 Hughes TH-55 helicopter, N2KX, was destroyed during an attempted takeoff from the Paintsville-Prestonsburg-Combs Field Airport (3I6), Paintsville, Kentucky." See also This reference and this reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Paintsville-Prestonsburg Combs Field has an article, but it is not located near Hebron, Kentucky, the location of the subject airport. Our difficulty finding any information about the subject airport contributes to its non-notability. -Canglesea (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Merge and redirect to Hebron, Kentucky#Air. There should be a page at 1KY8 (the FAA code) linking to the information about this airport and also linking to the information about the facility that currently has the code (if it isn't notable enough for it's own article then put the info about it as a section on the locality article). Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what? There is nothing in the Combs Field Airport article to add to the locality article, Hebron, Kentucky, that isn't already there, including the FAA code: (1KY8), which is incorrect! -Canglesea (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Former airports are notable - see Lympne Airport and Berlin Tempelhof Airport for examples. However, these are both adequately sourced and referenced, which this article is not. If no sources can be found it should be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no information here, there's nothing in Google that indicates there's any chance data will be here anytime soon. Moreover, Great Circle Mapper (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=1KY8-CVG&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=mi&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE= ) indicates the FAA code given is 81 miles form CVG, not 4 as the article states. Some closed airports are relevant- there will likely always be an article about Berlin's Tegel airport after she closes in a couple years. But this doesn't seem to have been notable when it was operating, and its determinately not now. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Jake Wartenberg 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure

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

This is not really encylepedic it has more definition which is more apporpate for a dictionary Mschilz20 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more suitable for Wiktionary. Most of the article, while interesting, is pure original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It should be obvious due to the fact that the sole reference is its entry in a dictionary. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef, unsourced OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems like a simple concept such as this would have more sources. Maybe I'll track some down. In any event, this shouldn't be a red link - but where would we redirect it? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A soft redirect to Wiktionary seems like a good target. James086^{Talk | Email} 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be interesting to note that the Encyclopedia Britannica has (at one point, anyway) included an "Adventure" entry: [27]. That may have been part of the motivation for creating the wiki page(which has existed for over 8 years!) I don't think WP:NOTDICT really applies; "adventure" is a very broad concept which could be covered in an encyclopedic fashion. Maybe something like this could be useful. Zagalejo^^^ 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our editing policy to keep and improve imperfect articles rather than to delete them. I had no difficulty adding a good source on sensation seeking behaviour to the article and there are numerous other aspects of this highly notable topic to develop. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has a lot of WP:Potential I can see how it can be improved extensively. Ikip (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, a magnet for every kind of OR and vandalism, but not a topic that can be covered sufficiently in a dictionary. Comments such as "Paragliding has been popular for being adventurous" should be deleted right away, to set the right tone. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to tag debatable statements for attention first. I had no difficulty finding a good source to support the statement about paragliding. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scjessey. WP:OR concerns, more suited to wikidictionary. Bravedog (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There is a significant literature, for example, on the psychology of adventure and risk-taking, which eventually this article I imagine could cover. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW - if the consensus is delete, could you give me a heads up and I'll import to Wikiversity since philosophy of adventure is a standar part of v:outdoor education and we're developing materials in that area. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's more like a collection of definitions then a collection of encyclopaedic information. Martarius (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It only became anything like a collection of links after it seems a recent merger of content from adventurer. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is, indeed, currently a mish-mash. I suggest the odd list of "adventurers" is a failing here, and that it couldwell dwellon the "why" of adventure a bit more. Collect (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but undo the merge and put some content back at Adventurer. [28] Dream Focus 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' FWIW , the old EB article was about a rather different concept--ione not even mentioned here. , DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NOT and WP:DICT.--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really I have no idea why broad and notable subjects like this are brought to AfD when so much else exists that needs to be cleaned out of here. This is exactly the type of topic that one would expect in a paper encyclopedia and we have to cover the basics before we think of approaching the realms of more specialized encyclopedias. Also, per Piano non troppo. Them From Space 21:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from WP:NOTPAPER, even Britannica, a notable paper (and online) encyclopedia, does not have an article specifically for "Adventure", at least the last time I checked. GreyWyvern^⚒ 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs to be enhanced not removed. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came to this page looking for information on "Adventure" as a literary genre. The page I was looking for was actually Adventure novel. Perhaps these articles can be merged? 208.47.211.5 (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. As I see it, this should be the top-level article in a tree, outlining the general concept of adventure and then providing an introduction to related detailed topics like adventure tourism, adventure playgrounds, adventure fiction, etc, which would be dealt with in separate articles too. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like Colonel Warden's conceptualisation of what contributors to this article could strive towards. I've added at least some reference now to adventure novel. Also, not sure if this is relevant, but there's over 1,000 WP links to this page: Special:WhatLinksHere/Adventure. -- Jtneill - Talk 14:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in all my time on Wikipedia. We don't delete articles because they are in rough shape I believe that is a core principle of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a huge base of knowledge, and we should not be deleting articles on huge topics. There are to many topics that are related to adventure, that it would not be suitable for Wikitionary. It is just to complicated a term for a simple definition. This is nonsense.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the kind of article that raises quality on most wikipedias. It is beyond me that this is considered in need for deletion. GerardM (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G6) by The JPS. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Ethics (disambiguation)

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB: The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. The primary has a hatnote to the only other entry, so this page serves no purpose. Was deprodded by anon, without giving reason. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this was prodded twice, contrary to WP:PROD - both times I deprodded, I left a note of justification in the edit summary. Thus nom's last sentence is incorrect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the prodding was by two different editors, and no reason had been given at the time I wrote the first comment. You reverted the other editor's prod soon after, with a vague reason in the edit summary. Boleyn3 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land recycling

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

Not encylepedic. Mschilz20 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An interesting article, but entirely WP:OR. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Warrah (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The article is unsourced, but it is not at all clear to me that it's WP:OR. Clicking on any of the "find sources" links above makes it abundantly clear that there are sources here and that the topic is notable. Contrary to the nom, the subject is highly encylopedic. In retrospect, I'm surprised the article is of such recent creation. TJRC (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Land restoration, surely?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "Not encylepedic" is not an adequate reason to start an AFD as it is begging the question. The topic has such notability that it is clear that our deletion process has not been properly followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but suggest heavy, heavy editing to ensure it meets basic standards of verifiability and neutrality. Land recycling in the UK is tracked by Defra ([29], [30]), to me that is a very strong indicator that the topic is notable. Do not redirect to Land reclamation as it appears to be an entirely different topic. As I have had to be informed in the past "not encyclopaedic" is not a good argument for deletion at AfD as it is effectively stating "doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia because it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia" without a true reason why. Guest9999 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the link to Google news, and you see it mentioned, clicked on the link to Google book search, and you'll find more mentions of it. Searching government websites [31] gives thousands of results as well. Dream Focus 09:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, someone else decided it was a G6. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bowen (disambiguation)

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB: The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. The primary has a hatnote to the only other entry, so this page serves no purpose. PROD was removed by anon as 'no primary', butt here was no further discussion. By page views and pages linked to it, Matt Bowen is correctly at primary page. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: DAB is not necessary at this time as there is only one other name on it. The link at the primary page should be enough. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as a G6 speedy deletion but I decided that since the PROD was contested I would let this AFD run its course. I recommend deleting it anyway. James086^{Talk | Email} 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's so contestable about a G6? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G6 "uncontroversial maintenance", I would call it controversial if someone has removed the PROD with a reason. That said, I'm not going to reverse the deletion just for the sake of bureaucracy. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List_of_postcode_districts_in_the_United_Kingdom. I'm unsure that this is a deletion issue. There seems to be agreement that neither list is optimal at the moment, so I am closing this as a tentative Merge in order that involved editors can work on it. If some sort of a merge takes place then this article can be redirected to the other (or vice versa), but would not be deleted anyway in order to keep attribution. Black Kite 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outward postcode list

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

Content fork of existing List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom article. MRSC (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seeking clarification:~~ A few days ago I started a discussion at Talk:List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom#Duplicate lists of postcode districts relating to Outward postcode list, proposing that it be reverted to a redirect to List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom but also seeking to make progress on the layout of List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom and related pages. Is the AfD proposal actually for deletion or simply for reinstating the redirect (which I would support) and, if the latter, is an AfD appropriate? "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." On the face of it, a restored redirect would seem to be more useful than a missing page. If necessary, we could transclude to move the existing discussion to this page, or redirect/cross-ref from here to the existing discussion. The Talk page discussion is already cross-referenced on the Talk pages of some closely related articles.
– Richardguk (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried redirecting and was reverted. Instead of edit warring with an anon IP it is better to go via this route. I would note there is no need for a redirect as the article has no inbound links and its title is somewhat unclear. List of postcode district outward codes might be worth creating as a redirect to the existing postcode district list, but this can be deleted. Additionally the list contains numerous errors and has no sources. MRSC (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether a single revert is a bit limited to classify as an edit war. Certainly the revert was misguided, and certainly deleting the page would help to prevent future reverts (though would not guarantee the creation of forks by other means). Perhaps, if no one objects during the AfD process, we could conclude by reapplying the revert with a suitable explanatory note, instead of deleting the page itself at this stage, and then wait to see whether more permanent measures are justified? It is possible that the page has external links and is on watch lists so there may be a potential advantage in channelling these to the correct page. (Re: List of postcode district outward codes, seems unlikely anyone would ever guess at that page name so no need to create that article IMHO.)
— Richardguk (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any links in and to be honest external links are not reason enough to keep an article which is essentially a WP:FORK. [32] MRSC (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Delete then Redirect might be more appropriate in this case? This would avoid potential edit warring as the history would be deleted and would still direct users. Would this still enable it to show up in people's watch lists? Zangar (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in AfD discussions "Delete" is taken to mean "remove the page and its history completely and not just its current contents" (see the AfD article and the deletion glossary), so you can either Delete or Redirect but once you have deleted there is no page from which to redirect so you can't do both. Are you recommending Redirect? — Richardguk (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: Delete then Redirect does mean to "remove the page and its history completely and not just its current contents", then you can set up a clean article with the same name as a redirect. This can be found under the Redirect bullet at the aforementioned deletion glossary. So at this stage I am recommending Delete then Redirect, but if the concensus is that the single revert is not enough to warrent deletion, then I'd be in favour of a Redirect. Hope this helps :) Zangar (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apologies for not reading the glossary properly – but thanks for putting me right so politely! I've mentioned below that having the history available might assist in refining the List of page, so I'm minded to stick with plain Revert, but accept that Delete and Redirect is preferable to a simple Delete. So we seem to have split 4 ways at present – but at least everyone has been respectful of the merits of each case! — Richardguk (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete. There is a case for keeping this article in that this is ordered by postcode number, whilst the other article is ordered by place name . There again, that might not be be a good enough reason. Either way, this is something that is better discussed through a proposed merger, to decide which details in which articles should and shouldn't be included. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this is the most practical option but I agree in principal to some extent, which is why I started the broader discussion at Talk:List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom#Duplicate lists of postcode districts prior to MRSC's creation of this AfD, though I sympathise with MRSC's reasons for starting the AfD too. I think we can make both articles better than the sum of their parts, and in fact I created a prototype article demonstrating a revised layout that is more concise and has sortable columns. Even so, the grouping of post towns by postcode area at List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom means that it is in practice not very difficult for someone searching for a particular district to find it in the alphabetical list, since districts too have areas as their parent in the hierarchy. Editors have been dabbing the Outward article since it was reverted, so any delay in deleting or redirecting it again is likely to lead editors to unwittingly waste time editing a redundant page. Also, it is not clear whether the co-ordinate data in the Outward page is open source, so there are added reasons for not deferring for a merger discussion. By putting the redirect back in place, we can take our time to reach consensus on a revised version of the List of article whilst still having the Outward page history to refer back to and without uninvolved editors getting distracted into dabbing or linking to the superfluous page. — Richardguk (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (but Without Prejudice to a possible future Delete): Though the previous redirect was reverted, this only happened once so there is very limited evidence so far that a delete is required; if reverts continued in future, the case for deletion would be stronger, so redirecting for now should not cause problems and is more in line of the spirit of Wikipedia in channelling rather than removing misguided and forked page names. The pages are sufficiently similar that there is no need to delay further for a separate merger discussion prior to improving the List of article. — Richardguk (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible search terms should not be redlinks; "Outward postcode list" is a plausible search term for a British user; so deletion is the wrong call. But this is a content fork at present, which is not acceptable and it should be returned to the parent article. A redirect outcome seems the only sensible course.
While I was researching my !vote for this AfD, I couldn't help noticing that List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom seems not to be a sortable wikitable. Why not?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom isn't sortable at the moment, there's a discussion about that here: Talk:List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom#Duplicate lists of postcode districts, as well as the structure of information. Zangar (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks. I think that because of the first pillar, which says rather clearly that Wikipedia is a gazetteer as well as an encyclopaedia, we need detailed information on postcodes and postcode areas (which are, after all, geographical locations). I also think that somewhere in Wikipedia's mainspace, there should be a single, sortable list of UK postcodes. The one in Richardguk's userspace seems ideal, and I would certainly support putting it in the mainspace, ideally somewhere easy to find and certainly within one mouse click of whatever article you get when you search for "postcode".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. Outward postcode list is not a plausible search term. Firstly Wikipedia list articles are named List of X not X list. Secondly outward postcode is an attempt at a technical phrase not used in everyday conversation: I think the Royal Mail says a postcode has an outward part and inward part. Two lists of the same things is undesirable and if there is a move to make the lists ordered, tat would be a great improvement. Sussexonian (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about the list in this format is that it gives easy checking that a postal town and county is correct for a specific postcode. Providing the List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom was made sortable, merging this data with that page would make sense with further links then possible to the specific wiki-pages for each postal district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.42.171 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments regarding non-notability of the specific album are trumped by the arguments raised by TJRC and Epeefleche -- Samir 08:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elegy (Julian Lloyd Webber album)

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

No notability is claimed, nor any reason offered why this is particularly worthy of an encyclopedia article. As it stands, it's just a track listing. RobertG ♬ talk 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely search term and failure of the notability guidelines for albums. No secondary sources, reviews, etc.; I would suggest checking her other albums as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: As per WP:NALBUMS. Definitely "little more than a track listing". GreyWyvern (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Julian Lloyd Webber or create a newly-created Julian Lloyd Webber discography page; or if no one is willing to do that work, Keep. JLW is a top-rated cellist to the point that one may make an argument that each of his albums are inherently notable. The information contained in the article should not be lost. TJRC (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely a compilation album of popular tunes that didn't chart and with no reviews or significant coverage (at least I didn't find any). Hekerui (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per convention of keeping albums of N bands/musicians.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the arguments of TJRC above, which I find to be a reasonable compromise. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom King (highwayman)

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

Tom King was a fictional construct of William Harrison Ainsworth in his novel Rookwood (novel) and appears to have been based on Matthew King, a real-life colleague of 18th-century highwayman Dick Turpin.

The article appears to be mostly original research. It is riddled with errors, such as "Turpin fled to York where he was later arrested for sheep stealing", and "Turpin accidently shot King with his pistol" (this latter sentence is based on an eye-witness statement that appears embellished).

I suggest that the article be deleted, and a redirect be placed to Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not sure about the redirect though, because of the Matthew/Tom confusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Dick Turpin. Plenty of references for Tom King, but you'll be hard pressed to find any which do not also reference Mr. Turpin as their main focus. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge. The article contains nothing that isn't already mentioned in Dick Turpin, and anything that isn't is either written as fact from fictional sources, or made-up rubbish. Parrot of Doom 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tom King is, as far as I am aware, a real historical character. At least, the Encyclopaedia Britannica seems to think so! Deb (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The encyclopaedia Brittanica is incorrect. Dick Turpin only ever consorted with a Tom King in Ainsworth's book. His real-life accomplice was Matthew King. Tom King was fictionalised in Rookwood, but also later in Tom King, the Hero Highwayman, or, Stand and Deliver, and Tom King the Dashing Highwayman (Sharpe p174). Both Sharpe and Barlow, both experts on Dick Turpin, state explicitly that Tom King never existed. In every other source, not a single one I have found gives its sources for the existence of Tom King. Parrot of Doom 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who are Sharpe and Barlow? Tom King was the name by which Matthew King was better known - see [33]. Deb (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Matthew King has never been known as Tom King. Tom King is a fictional character based on Matthew King. People who identify the latter as the former, are simply incorrect, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The National Archives say that Tom King was the nickname of Matthew King, as do other sources. Where is your evidence that he has not? If you wish to move the article to Matthew King (highwayman), I have no objections. Deb (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The National Archives offers no sources for its claims, and that page would very likely have been written by a non-expert on the subject, as a quick web summation of the document advertised. Neither, for that matter, does the Encyclopaedia Britannica offer sources, which cannot even get Turpin's baptism date correct. I have two very sound sources to verify my claims. One, Sharpe (2005), which offers a fairly significant list of historical documents and published works, and the other, from the ODNB, which is written by Derek Barlow, author of a well-respected book on Turpin that I haven't yet managed to find an affordable copy of. If you can find a single mention anywhere of a Tom King working with Richard Turpin, before Ainsworth's Rookwood was published, then I'll happily apologise. You won't though.
      - I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue. The above article offers no reliable sources, and everything I have said is demonstrably correct. If you want to ignore the plain truth staring you in your face, well that isn't my problem. As for a move, if that happened then this article would become a two-line stub. Parrot of Doom 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I get the picture. Your experts (one of whom you admit you haven't even read anything by) are the only real experts. Any source I quote must therefore be wrong. That's not how wikipedia works. If you will give me an explicit citation or any evidence at all that Matthew King was not commonly known as "Tom", I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion. So far, all we have is your word for it. Deb (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ODNB, Sharpe, James (2005), The Myth of the English Highwayman, Profile Books ltd, ISBN 1861974183 p. 132, pp. 154-155, p. 174. By the way, where did I ever say that I hadn't read anything about Dick Turpin by Derek Barlow? Parrot of Doom 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It would be useful if you could quote the relevant paragraph to save me having to go and order it from a library, since you have it to hand. Deb (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You can consider all of my above postings as a citation. It would also be useful if you would assume good faith. I'm not jumping through any more hoops, I have too many other things to work on. Parrot of Doom 14:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Same here. If you quote an obscure work from a little-known "expert" as the only primary source for your statements, you can expect to be questioned on it. Deb (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't quote Sharpe as the only primary source for the confusion between Matthew King and Tom King though, did I? Or do you want me to copy the ODNB entry for Tom King also? Because I won't be doing that either. Parrot of Doom 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you wouldn't/couldn't quote, I looked further and found this review of Sharpe's book. It would seem to cast some doubt on his status as an expert. Deb (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the article casts some doubt on his thoroughness by highlighting errors he made in modern history. It finds no fault in his research of Turpin's actual life. A minor problem I've already noted here. Now you can go and find something to pick over regarding Barlow's 1973 book, or his ODNB entry on Dick Turpin, while defending a badly-written poorly-sourced article full of nonsense with links to the frankly awful Encyclopaedia Britannica. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're just digging yourself in deeper. You won't cite any primary sources, you won't quote from the books you've read which you know are not generally accessible. What conclusion do you expect others to come to? Deb (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No doubt once I've copied the several paragraphs of text, you'll accuse me of making it up, and will demand scans, just as you tried (and failed) to question the reliability of the Sharpe book. To hell with that. All the information you need I have already provided, in the form of an ODNB biography of Dick Turpin, and a good-quality source which I've provided page numbers for. Its up to you if you want to verify them or not, because I won't do it for you. Believe me, or don't believe me, I no longer give a shit. I can't be arsed arguing with people who cast aspersions on my honesty, and who try and defend poorly-referenced articles such as the one under discussion. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Deb, in your zeal to have this article kept, I think you have forgotten than Tom King's relation to Dick Turpin is specifically noted as an invalid criteria for an individual's notability. Unless you can show that Tom King has received significant third-party coverage apart from his supposed relationship with Dick Turpin, the WP notability guidelines on this situation are clear. GreyWyvern^⚒ 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't doubt you'll find enough in the revised article to justify keeping it. And as yet, there is no consensus to delete. Deb (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Deb, your Britannica reference is prefaced by a note indicating the content was automatically extracted from their main article about Dick Turpin as a search result. eg. association with Turpin (in Dick Turpin (English criminal)). Britannica does not have a separate article about Tom King. GreyWyvern (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, so it's their main article on Dick Turpin that says Tom King was a real person, then. Deb (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am a real person too. Why don't I get my own Wikipedia page? :) The issue here is notability, and besides the tenuous like to Dick Turpin, Tom King wasn't notable. I think, if anything, we should follow Britannica's example on this and mention Tom on the Dick Turpin page, instead of giving Tom his own article. GreyWyvern^⚒ 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tom King is already mentioned on Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        facepalm: I mean that we should follow their example and not have a separate article for Tom King. I know he is already mentioned on Dick Turpin's page :) GreyWyvern^⚒ 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sorry, I see what you mean now. I completely agree, but my opposition to the article in question is that it makes fiction appear as fact. Even were we to have an article on Matthew King, it would be a stub which almost certainly wouldn't be expanded. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The current article seems to be factually correct correct, and is supported by the DNB entry for Turpin, with the relevant paragraph reading "Turpin then took up with Matthew King (then, and since, erroneously identified as Tom King), whom he may have known already, and stole a racehorse called Whitestockings, which was soon traced to a stable behind the Red Lion in Whitechapel. In the ensuing ambush on 2 May, Turpin again escaped, but Matthew King was shot and later died of his wounds." [http/www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27892] . BTW, there are two Tom King's in ODNB with full articles, and neither is him: King, Thomas (1835–1888), pugilist, who has a Wikipedia article at Thomas King (boxer) [34], and King, Thomas (1730–1805), actor and theatre manager, who does not have a Wikipedia article. Anyone who wants the text of that article to work from, email me, as he is unquestionably notable. The present article discusses the fictional character, who is notable as such, the real person corresponding to him, and the misnomer. (I have not found whether or not there was a real Tom King as a highwayman.) The solution would be to make the article about the fictional character only, explaining the origin of the name. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W-body brake upgrade

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

This article consists of a highly-detailed description of an automobile maintenence/upgrade procedure. It is not encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a technical manual --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced WP:OR GreyWyvern (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTMANUAL Athe Weatherman 19:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under A7. The article fails to assert the significance or importance of the company. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Life Alliance

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

Delete. Non notable Corp. I found one news article mentioning it's existance. I added to article and attempted to wikify. I still think it should be deleted so I wilol open to community. Please look at original draft and then the stubbed version. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WebLab

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

Delete The article gives no sources. I have searched extensively, and found no evidence of any significant independent sources. (Note that searching is made more complicated by the existence of at least 4 other entities using names such as "Web Lab", "Weblab", or "WebLab".) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely speedy delete as unambiguous advertising: a platform aiming at providing intelligence (business, strategic, military...) solutions. Yes, but what does it do? Also a business with no baseline showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed to make this article more neutral ? what should be removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.184.180.29 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is really a question of making it more neutral. The fundamental point is that there is no evidence that the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, which are essentially based on ther being a significant amount of coverage in independent sources. If the software has, for example, been the subject of a chapter in a significant book, or if there have been articles devoted to the software in several prominent journals, then it would pretty clearly be notable. Please note that a few brief mentions in articles about other things would probably not be enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added some "references" I have in mind (applications developed in research projects), there are some more but I may be not know them (especially because the community is "growing" and that we start to see some projects investigating as their software platform without being involved in WebLab). Fore sure the publication is does appear in are not "prominent journals" (well I would happily read your definition of "prominent") because the area impacted by the software is not that broad. So far there is only few scientific articles. I also saw some blog posts (in french) and some small introduction in news, I have to find back the references and you can judge for the validity of such things. G.Dupont (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most blogs are not reliable sources, as anyone can write a blog. From what you say ("the area impacted ... is not that broad", "there are only a few ... articles", etc) it looks as though there is not notability. Certainly nothing in the article at present indicates that there is, nor do my web searches. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right about blogs, a colleague found back some other sources (mainly french sorry).

   * http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2009/03/weblab-platform-aiming-at-providing.html
   * http://www.w3.org/2008/12/ogws-slides/ifp.pdf
   * http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/eurosatory2008/sections/french/daytwo/index-3.shtml
   * http://2009.rmll.info/IMG/pdf/GaeldeChalendar_UIMA_LSM09_paper.pdf

About the "broadness" of the impact, I did not mean that the impact is not broad but that the domain concerned (mainly open sources data processing and intelligence) is not that broad or not that much a 'public' domain. Do we restraint the wikipedia depending on the popularity of the domain concerned ? (sorry my sentence may appear a bit rude, but my english is not that good and I'm not sure how to express this). G.Dupont (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four links given above:

The first is to a pay-to-view site, and I have not checked it.

The second is to a set of 59 presentation slides. On slide 20 there is a diagram which appears to be an illustration of how to perform an "annotation service". (Since we have only the slides, not the accompanying talk, the context is unclear.) On this diagram there are some example references to illustrate the method, including 2 example refs to WebLab; this is the only mention of WebLab in the document.

The third appears to be a list of exhibitors at an exhibition. Among nearly 200 exhibitors WebLab has a 2 sentence mention.

The fourth is a paper (from how reliable a source I cannot tell) which has a couple of sentences telling us that WebLab exists, and little more.

Unfortunately none of this comes within a million miles of significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first is to a pay-to-view site, and I have not checked it.

Sorry, this must be the wrong link, since I read the article without payin anything... I'll check

The second is to a set of 59 presentation slides. On slide 20 there is a diagram which appears to be an illustration of how to perform an "annotation service". (Since we have only the slides, not the accompanying talk, the context is unclear.) On this diagram there are some example references to illustrate the method, including 2 example refs to WebLab; this is the only mention of WebLab in the document.

The third appears to be a list of exhibitors at an exhibition. Among nearly 200 exhibitors WebLab has a 2 sentence mention.

True, but then you can also evaluate the impact of the event itself (Eurosatory)... There are hundreds of athlets in NBA, but being only one of them is already something valuable don't you think ?

The fourth is a paper (from how reliable a source I cannot tell) which has a couple of sentences telling us that WebLab exists, and little more.

We tried to find source not from people from the WebLab team and yes it is still a bit difficult since it has not been recorded. Can we have some delay to find others ? G.Dupont (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new source from new W3C site (mentionning the WebLab being used in a project)G.Dupont (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   * http://www.w3.org/2008/12/ogws-slides/ifp.pdf

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete exceptional, and encyclopedic subject matter will be clearly and unequivocably verifiable. this isn't. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 22:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vespasia

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

un-sourced and no indication of notability. Current version states she died in the first year of life and nothing else is known. Google does not show anything to indicate notability. noq (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing in Google. Possible hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. If a current world leader had an infant sister who had died shortly after birth, a mention would be made in either that leader's article or the article for the leader's parents. In this case, the girl's father's article (Titus Flavius Sabinus (father of Vespasian)) mentions the child, and her passing. I think this is sufficient. The fact that the girl was the sister of the Roman Emperor Vespasian does not itself make her notable. The redirect to her father's article is reasonable, if a source exists about the name. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At most should be a footnote on the Titus Flavius Sabinus I page, nothing more. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Titus Flavius Sabinus (father of Vespasian) per UltraExactZZ. TJRC (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a redirect is to be put in wouldn't it be better to point it at Vespasia Polla? As this is the more likely person to be searched for. noq (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is clearly vandalism or something based on Colleen McCullough-Robinson. Delete it at full speed. Blood3 10:13, 8 November 2009 (AESD)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 20:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Escarpment

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

No sources can be found which use the term Severn Escarpment, therefore it is doubtful whether it requires an article — Rod ^talk 13:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, no significant coverage. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: I found some sources - seems like a valid a geologic feature. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are indeed "escarpments" parallel to the Severn on both sides of the estuary, west and east. However, there is no feature which is given the proper name "Severn escarpment". What the single cited source refers to is an escarpment near the Severn. It is an entirely different feature to that referred to in the original article, as it is north rather than south of the river; it has no proper name; it is not a noteworthy feature. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can argue notability for a reason other than the fact it exists. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW... Tone 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Koay

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

Declined WP:PROD. Subject does not appear notable, and no sources are given to support single claim to notability ("Her most notable designs have included a sports centre for the town of Tonypandy in South Wales.") Frank | talk 12:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Facebook, Twitter etc. hits, but nothing to back a claim of notability. Favonian (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a hoax in view of the original author's latest contribution to the article. Favonian (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and no sources. Claireislovely (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this athlete. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links added to prove notability. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnysnatch (talk • contribs) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of her and can verify that she is indeed a notable netballer in Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.141.200 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete vanity article. zero coverage [35]. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, the other links were taken down, but I've put more up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnysnatch (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Latest edits by the creator make it quite clear this is vandalism. I42 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax article. Minnysnatch is a SPA for this article. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's a nobody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.31.74 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Austin Ortega

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

PROD which was contested by Joeberto (talk · contribs), the article creator. This non-notable soccer player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence that suggests he passes Wp:ATHLETE, since playing for a university team (that doesn't pass Wp:FOOTYN) or in an Under-17 competition doesn't grant notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article about a non-notable young player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Stormbay (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, non-notable athlete. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 16:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, non-notable athlete. recreate if becomes notable Steve-Ho (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet requirements of WP:ATHLETE. Crafty (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Adam Ortega

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

PROD which was contested by Joeberto (talk · contribs), the article creator. This non-notable soccer player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article about a non-notable young player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Stormbay (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, non-notable athlete. recreate if becomes notable Steve-Ho (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't achieved anything worthy of an article Spiderone 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Crafty (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yandere

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

Neologism based on a Japanese portmanteau. The article is filled with original research. The single source cited by the article does not actually define the term, or the two Japanese words that make up the portmanteau. Contents of article fails the policy on verifiability. —Farix (t | c) 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was previously nominated and kept as part of a joint nomination with Tsundere. In that AfD nomination, someone said as reason for keeping Yandere that the Japanese Wikipedia article lists a book as a source, and that there is a video game devoted to the subject. The Japanese Wikipedia article does list several sources that someone should look into (I can't read Japanese). There are also sources in some of the Wikipedia articles in other languages, thought many of those seem to be the same one from the English article or the same ones from the Japanese article, but there might be a few additional sources in one of them. Calathan (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Second only to tsundere as far as this school of neologisms go; worth at least investigating those sources to see if there's enough traction. Doceirias (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the previous nomination. You can/should have look there for the reasonings. Translation of the Japanese wiki and its sources would help greatly though. {{Expand Japanese}} Transaction Go (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The JP wiki appears to list blogs and game descriptions as sources. This isn't the reliable sources needed to keep this type of article. One of them is even from DynDNS. —Farix (t | c) 22:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or incubate. The Spanish and Chinese articles cite references that may be worth investigating. I am more doubtful of the German article's references as the only one that appears useful is used in the Japanese article. I did not find any references in the other three articles. (French, Italian, Korean) -- allen四names 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish article links to two blog sources. See above for as the Chinese article uses the exact same "sources" as the Japanese article.

Keep This article may be in bad shape, but there is enough reason to keep it, just as we keep articles like tsundere or meganekko; it's an established archetypal character in animanga and has been growing in recent years. I've even seen the term used in popular anime as early as two years ago.--十八 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources then? —Farix (t | c) 22:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news gives 11 results. This one [36] clearly defines what the word means. Dream Focus 03:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as others have found plenty of sources. As per WP:PAPER and WP:DEADLINE, article quality by itself is not a reason to remove an article on a notable topic. -moritheil^Talk 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far, only one source has been brought forward, that that only defines the term. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...in the term "yandere" (which roughly translates as sweet on the outside, psycho on the outside...

A commercial CD featuring yandere characters

ASCII calling School Days a "yandere game representative"

And, as coincidence would have it, the sixth episode of the second season for Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu even defines the term explicitly.--十八 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Birdwood

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

I know it is rather unusual to nominate an article written by oneself, however I had started it in my earlier Wikipedia-days and reviewing the article today, I don't know what had driven me then. After research I can't find more relevant sources than notifications in the London Gazette concerning military promotion, so to my disgrace the article lacks not only of notability, but also of reliable references.

Since the article's creation several people have added minor edits to it, therefore I have avoided to tag the article with a G7-speedy tag and instead have put it to AfD. I sincerely apologise for the waste of your time. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Lacks notability, reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Phoe should be commended for an earnest self-assessment, and for bringing this to AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I second the atta-boy for User:Phoe. TJRC (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not really decided but would not being deputy lieutenant give him some kind of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would he have been a vice-lord lieutenant perhaps, however as a deputy lieutenant he was only one of several assigned to a lord lieutenant, which besides is merely a honorary office itself now. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is High Sheriff of Devon a notable position? Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 00:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Brown Curse

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

The topic fails the general notability guideline (Wikipedia:Notability); it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since the "Mack Brown Curse" lacks such sources, the article conducts original research (Wikipedia:No original research); it's trying to define and promote the Curse rather than reporting on an established meme. (The forum community that created the article is here; there is some discussion of how to establish notability and achieve "high visibility".)

A breakdown of the current citations:

[37] A column in the UT student newspaper. The author posits a curse but doesn't claim that it's a popular idea among college football fans, so it's a primary source rather than a (required) secondary source. Reliability and independence are debatable.
[38] This is a blog.
None of the other sources (NBC, ESPN, SI) mention a curse. Melchoir (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem -- | Yahoo! Sports / Rivals has an article covering this. Not sure how this qualifies as "original research" any more. Rimbo (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-06t12:04z
Delete - obvious promotion through original research. Urgh. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are of poor quality. Smacks of WP:NEO. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Update: Funny folks should mention "original research," as Yahoo! Sports -- via Rivals -- has actually published an article extensively covering the Mack Brown Curse. Y'all wanna review those deletion nominations now? Rimbo (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I for one happen to find sports lore fascinating. But the cure for original research is to yank it -- not to shuffle it around between articles, or to embellish it with even more OR. Melchoir (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Note, this comment was in response to another comment which has since been deleted by its author. Melchoir (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not "original research". At least, not anymore.Rimbo (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm... this story was posted just today, so I found the convenient timing suspicious at first. But it appears to be a coincidence. On the "Can someone post the All Mack Brown Curse Team?" thread, Geoff Ketchum himself commented on 11/7, "We've been working on the story for a couple of weeks. Coming Monday.", which suggests that the Orangebloods.com story is causally unrelated to the Wikipedia article.
    What's really promising are these other forum comments by Ketchum on the story thread: "...This is a pretty well-known topic that's been discussed in the media all of the nation. Mack's been asked about it at various times... There have been newspaper columns about it in recent years." In other words, Ketchum is claiming that there exists evidence of notability-in-the-Wikipedia-sense, but he doesn't say what that evidence is! You should ask him for citations to the media.
    Failing that, I don't think Orangebloods.com should be considered an independent, reliable, secondary source. Google classifies it as a blog rather than as news. The article doesn't identify an author with a separate editorial staff, so its journalistic credentials are suspect. It may have corporate sponsorship from Yahoo!, but that isn't relevant for WP:RS. Melchoir (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gongshow ^Talk 05:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natacha Merritt

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

Not notable Rhomb (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. The article asserts none of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. She has published a NN book: not enough. An interview and an article about photographing herself giving oral sex) may support WP:V but hardly WP:N. Rhomb (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], and [44]. I'd rather not have articles this on Wikipedia, but she is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Which of these do you think this person has met? Rhomb (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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." WP:CREATIVE is part of WP:BIO. She meets WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumed" perhaps -- presumptions are rebuttable. Since "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", I claim that mere sensationalism over her work is trivial, and that this is supported by the fact that the failure to meet the criteria I quoted above supports that assessment. Rhomb (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per years of community consensus, the links show notability and this article will be kept for sure. Joe Chill (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Joe Chill, I'm not a fan of her work and I wouldn't give her the time of day. But that's neither here nor there -- other people have, as the sources listed in the article and by Joe Chill clearly show. (Also, a number of other sources are behind pay walls.) She meets WP:BIO, and saying that the sources are trivial sounds a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As to the claim that the book isn't notable, Wikipedia:Notability (books) says a book is notable if "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." The book has been reviewed in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Guardian, among others.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 11:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm puzzled that anyone should bother to !vote "keep" when they would both rather see the article not here? Rhomb (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because she passes WP:BIO. Voting delete by our personal opinions won't get it deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:RS's provided by Joe Chill have been incorporated into the article. It still needs to be expanded but the groundwork has been laid. She is clearly WP:N. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not much to add to Joe Chill and Fabrictramp. They've really covered everything. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious notability. Specific contribution to her art form. Addressed in mainstream news media. Hektor (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's verifiability, not notability. Rhomb (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link you give for notability (WP:CREATIVE) lists "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That seems to be exactly what Hektor is saying.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read the Salon article [45], and she is clearly notable. Dream Focus 14:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the snowball clause, the probability of this discussion resulting in consensus to delete the article is minuscule, and so there is little point in prolonging it. Renaming suggestions and merge proposals are welcome on the article talkpage. Skomorokh, barbarian 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cats with fraudulent diplomas

Also adding List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created during the course of this debate.

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

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

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

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

Delete. This is about as unencyclopedic as it gets, list or no list. JBsupreme (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that JBSupreme is the nominator, and his rationale essentially is a copy-paste of Wikipedia Arguments to AVOID in Deletion Discussions. It's nothing more than WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC sprinkled with a dash of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you cannot think of a valid rationale when nominating an article for deletion, please don't bother nominating any articles in the future. Vodello (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't make a difference who or what the entity is getting a fraudulent diploma. There may be a trend that those doing the exposure choose a cat as the subject, but there's no real reason why that should be so, except habit. It would be a good idea to include any cited material in either the Diploma mill article, or in the article for the responsible company. Even if that's not done, the article doesn't need to be in Wiki. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Here's what I said on the talk page before this article was nominated for deletion: "The idea of a "list of cats with fraudulent diplomas" is a little odd and jokey, although the content is reasonable and cited. The significant aspect is not that a series of cats have been awarded fradulent diplomas — it's that people working to expose diploma mills sometimes use cats as funny newsworthy hooks. Maybe this material should instead be included in a section within diploma mill about efforts to expose fradulent diplomas." Dreamyshade (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Update to my vote: I am also OK with renaming. See my comments below at 21:03, 6 November 2009.[reply]

Keep. It's more interesting than most articles on Wikipedia. 82.71.22.229 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)— 82.71.22.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Just because an article is amusing doesn't mean it isn't also informative. It is, of course, niche useful information, but so is 99% of wikipedia. It's funny and it's well cited. It's funny and good. It should be kept. rek (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please people, this is Wikipedia, not encyclopedia dramatica. "because it has cats with diplomas" it's not a valid reason. R031E5 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should take four seconds to read the keep votes that give strong arguments, much stronger than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Vodello (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because it has cats with diplomas. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - fine, don't include it in the printed version, but keep it here - is a genuine problem, so let's keep a record of it. --jezmck (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well referenced and useful. Grue 08:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like it. I find the information interesting and of value. There are enough entries to warrant a page. lina70 08:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!! it's awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.164 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! The stories we tell, and even the frauds we perpetrate, tell us things about ourselves as people. This is cultural history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.161.170 (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC) — 24.209.161.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The content is encyclopedic, it should be in Wikipedia. I don't see any compelling argument why this content should be deleted. Two people have voted to delete, JBsupreme and Piano non troppo. JBsupreme has offered no persuasive argument of any kind. Piano non troppo seems to consider the content encyclopedic, though unnecessary, and considers the scope of the article to be too narrow. I agree with PNT that the title is too specific. Have other animals been used to get fraudulent diplomas? Is this technique used to identify fraud in other countries? If yes, it's probably a good idea to change this into a list of animals which have received fraudulent diplomas, or perhaps a list of educational institutions which have fraudulently given diplomas to animals. For now, leave it as is. The content is informative, well-referenced, and should be useful to anyone researching diploma mills. There's no better place to put it right now, but if other animals are used in this manner, the article should be moved to reflect the broader scope of this practice. --NorsemanII (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. Merging into diploma mill is a very bad idea, since it isn't notable in regard to exposing diploma mills; if anything, it should be merged into list of cats (see the list of dogs involved in war for a corresponding example). However, Wikipedia is not paper; we definitely have the space and resources to keep this article around. Merging with list of cats, an article which is already disorganized and filled with trivia, would ruin a good article (this one) and make a bad article (the list of cats) worse. Keeping it as its own article will make it easier to attract editors to watch this article and make sure it maintains its current high standard. This article is interesting and informative, has a number of well-researched examples, and will be interesting reading for fans of encyclopedias in general and Wikipedia in particular. I strongly vote we keep this article around. -- Gaurav (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's some justification for my idea to merge the article: there are no notable cats with fraudulent diplomas who aren't part of efforts to expose diploma mills. This list covers a real pattern, it involves a significant issue, and there's some reliable news coverage, but focusing on the cats isn't really appropriate for a serious article. It's playing along with the joke offered by the people who have registered their cats — in the service of a larger purpose. But the comparison to list of dogs involved in war is helpful — I might argue that those dogs would be more interesting as part of an article about wartime morale-boosting efforts, but that would be an oversimplified interpretation of the reasons why there are wartime dogs. I think the reasons are more clear in the list of cats with fraudulent diplomas. I agree that this list shouldn't be stuffed into a place where it would be forgotten, though. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Dreamyshade suggests. The practice of registering pets as a means of exposing fraudulent universities is something that should be covered, and the best place to do that is in the diploma mill article. Listing each and every instance is silly and unnecessary. Reyk _YO! 09:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep interesting, well referenced and useful. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge as per Dreamyshade StuartDouglas (talk)

Definitely keep. The topic of diploma mills is enormously important. The feline approach may seem like a bit of a joke, but actually it is very revealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Colquhoun (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is funny, informative and well referenced. I've no way of knowing if it's comprehensive but it is useful information, despite the jokey tone. The idea of showing that a cat's been awarded a diploma is a very effective way of highlighting how daft these degrees are. Plus, given that the internet is largely a resource for documenting cats I think it's important to preserve pages outlining their achievements :) JoBrodie (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this entry to be fully congruent with the avowed purpose of Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Bob Marshall (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)— Bob Marshall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.6.77 (talk) — 86.143.6.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No source discussing the notability of the topic => SYNTHESIS. This, much like the Dog article, is a COATRACK, and OR, as none of the reliable sources discuss a trend in generalised cat degree taking. I've been through this before at Mass killings under Communist regimes where people are willing to COATRACK any individual paragraph of verifiable material without realising that the article as a whole is not notable as the topic itself is not sustained in reliable sources. Yes I am comparing cat lovers to Joseph McCarthy. No RS discusses the notability (or actuality) of the practice of people in general getting degrees for their dogs. Its SYNTHESIS of the worst kind, a COATRACK of individual Dog Degree incidents being turned into a social trend by editors here. Wikipedia is not a Sociologist. Yes, I am comparing Dog Lovers to Vyacheslav Molotov Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC) 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with diploma mill. The topic is a bit too newspaper-like for a separate article, but it does serve to illustrate the lack of controls in such institutions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is linked from Reddit as of this morning, which will generate an unusual amount of interest. Very mild keep from me—while these cats are not individually notable, these appear to be separate, sourced instances of diplomas granted. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a link from diploma mill. While the article appears to be jokey, it's actually very informative as to the level of fraud that goes on in diploma mills. I don't think a simple mention along the lines of "diploma mills are often so lax as to award diplomas to household pets" cuts it. It's the fact that this can be done routinely, and also the fact that it's on the verge of bebeing a semi-normal journalistic technique in these kinds of investigations. frosty840 13:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Dreamyshade --Zegoma beach (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dreamyshade. I fear that this will fall upon deaf ears, however. Reviewing admin needs to carefully consider value of some of the keep !votes. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas to this discussion, which has recently been created and which ought to receive the same outcome. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article seems well cited. I would, however, consider potentially merging the dogs and cats articles in to a joint animals article, to avoid a proliferation of related articles. I don't see how this article is any different from many of the other more obscure pages wikipedia has. Luckybee23 (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there a global trend of cats and dogs getting dubious diplomas? If not, these funny but isolated incidents are better for News of the Weird. Warrah (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with link to/from diploma mill. This article is awesome, and its presence isn't hurting anyone. Penumbra 2k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is factual and well-referenced with impartial discussion. --Mwongozi (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very informative and amusing. Gravity should not be a prerequisite for a Wikipedia article. Seduisant (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article covers a notable subsection of the fraudulent degrees topic. Khcf6971 (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Keep - while perhaps a WP:SYN problem, each instance seems properly referenced. Also, this article is getting lots of notice outside wikipedia ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]), so why get everyone upset about it by deleting a verifiable list. Once again wikipedia randomly observes something over time (the use of cats to ferret out diploma mills) and cements the existence of it of a concept (the article was originally titled as Colby Nolan when created in December 2004, and was only renamed about 10 days ago). By the way, in searching the subject, I ran across the story of Tobias F. (for Feline) Schaeffer and added it to the article.--Milowent (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – What is notable is not the cats that have diplomas, but what this phenomenon reveals about diploma mills Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and move to close per invalid nomination and snowball Garbage deletion rationale by nominator JBSupreme. WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not valid rationales to nominate this article for deletion in the least. The template added by Edgarde in an effort to invalidate all keep votes is absolutely petty. The arguments to keep this article are sound, and no template will fool any administrator with the least bit of competency. The article is well sourced and clearly notable, and if someone gets butthurt and doesn't like it, that's just too damn bad. Vodello (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep and agree on the snowball. It's been a while since I've seen an article this well sourced show up in AfD. Discussion about merging with new corresponding Dog article might be useful (and is the only reason I can see for even bothering to keep this vote open). --Ray Radlein (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of WP:RS satisfy notability guidelines. The subject is weird indeed, but no guideline or policy reason exists to delete it. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diploma mills in the United States or to Diploma mill. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for indiscriminate information. The buying of diplomas for cats as a demonstration of the lack of legitimacy of the diploma mills is already covered in the redirect target article. No sources are cited showing that the topic of "cats with fake diplomas" or "goldfish with diplomas" or "dogs with diplomas" etc is notable in itself, so the article fails notability. Some of the animals listed doid not receive diplomas, but only memberships in some association. May violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Edison (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of single purpose accounts seem to be chiming in as "Keep." Was this publicized on a bulletin board somewhere? Edison (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And there's also lots of Keep votes from veterans that provide valid rationales. Apparently WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nom is worth more weight than a valid argument. Vodello (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, this article is being posted about all over the place on the internet.--Milowent (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's informative and notable, and if some people want to take umbrage that the article also happens to be funny, that's their problem - it doesn't outweigh the right of the rest of us to read it and be both informed and entertained thereby. --HarmonicSphere ^talk 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting and informative and well referenced. -shogun (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Interesting, presumably accurate, well referenced. Merge with List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas to create List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Goetzathome (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's a suggestion on the talk page to rename this as "List of fake diploma mill registrations", which is worth discussing as a way to focus on the significant issue (exposing fradulent diplomas) rather than the gimmick (cats, and a single dog). The only issue with that proposed title is that it sounds like it could cover both notable efforts to expose fraud and notable instances of people who have been caught with fake diplomas. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not lug List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas in the same category. That was a weak article with no references that was created just yesterday with a grand total of 128 bytes. There is absolutely NO compelling argument to move this article. Vodello (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as part of "List of fake diploma mill registrations" - good idea, good list, good research, good cites. I'm a long time editor and vested inclusionist. --Lexein (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No !vote, just a note to any passing admins to say that permission is granted for a snow closure. "Merge" and "keep" are effectively interchangeable outcomes at AfD, and the merger discussions can continue on the talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no convincing arguments to delete. It meets WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. WP:SYN does not apply since it doesn't "advance a position"; it's simply a list. Merging it with the dogs might be a good idea though. Lampman (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Information is information. This is we cited, and potentially useful. Additionally, I would like to point out that we are a rather farcically silly species in terms of our own self importance. Self consciousness has made us both highly socially advanced, and at the same time, completely over complicated. We are so proud very of our gathering and distribution of information, and ever so serious about it. By our definitions, this article is reliably sourced and true information. Perhaps allowing entries like this will help some to realize that and other to remember that there is should be a limit to our pride. At times, that which we define as necessary, important and relevant, can seem a bit ridiculous when put into practice or context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.108.121 (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge: These felines are only famous because of diploma mills and are entirely non-notable outside that context. Without knowing the diploma mill context, the meaning of this list appears absurd at best. I am not opposed to the "List of fake diploma mill registrations" renaming idea, but isolating cats as fake diploma recipients does not add anything to the discussion of fake diplomas in general. Tomorrow I will sign both of my Bearded Dragons up for degrees in astrophysics; will there be a page for reptiles too? GreyWyvern (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol Pretty funny. Not sure that the connection is anything more than tenuous, but ok. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that the opposition to the articles stems from the fact that it seems silly and moronic, given its subject matter...and because encyclopaedias must be of a completely pedantic and academic nature, it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. There is a fundamental flaw in this logic. It may seem "silly" to us, but so are many other articles--I'm sure that many people would agree that the subject of "pubic hair" is often a humorous one, yet there persists to be an article about it on Wikipedia.

The basis for an article isn't the emotive response we have to the subject matter, but rather its contexts and the information that it contains--and as long as it relevant to human existence and contains significant, cited information, it's perfectly appropriate. Cats may often be the subject of internet memes and of general humor, and combined with the seemingly-absurd notion of house pets getting professional degrees, I can see how people think the article should be removed...but behind this mess of facetiousness exist valid information. The articles talks about protest, and the cats were simply a vector for said protest. And even if the article wasn't, and was simply about cats with diplomas...it might seem inane and trivial, but if its well-cited it has conceivable uses and to a degree and is informative in an anthropological sense.RobLikesBrunch (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the dog and cat lists, either to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas or List of fake diploma mill registrations. The lists themselves are worth retaining. The distinction between cat and dog (and reptile, per User:GreyWyvern) is an immaterial distinction in lists such as these. Reasonable minds could vary on whether a list of diplomas that are fraudulent by virtue of being awarded to animals should be distinct from those that are fraudulent for other reasons; I suspect it would turn on the sizes of the lists. TJRC (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Merge both to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas or something similar, per TJRC. Merging to diploma mill would degrade the quality of that article by giving undue weight to this particular topic, which does (surprisingly) merit the detailed sort of treatment it's been given so far. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename. OK, undue weight is a good argument to consider. If this article were merged into diploma mill and not condensed and contextualized, it would be an unwieldy section. Actually, renaming to "Animals with fraudulent diplomas" sounds better to me, since this isn't just a list. The article provides detailed information for each item, and the events would make sense in chronological order rather than alphabetical order (because each diploma cat in the news may have influenced the occurence of later diploma cats). The article could also offer a much better introduction, with more of a summary of the contents and more contextualization about efforts to expose diploma mills. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Greywyvern and TJRC - my preference would be List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove fraudulent from the title. We cannot prove that each of the cats did not actually earn their diplomas. Since Reliable Sources reported on it, we should let that guide us rather than the silliness of the topic. Abe Froman (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced. Optionally merging into diploma mill is preferable to deletion. Defixio (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the topic is a bit odd, it's a well written and well referenced article. Maybe we can rename it to "animals" instead of just cats. I'm almost positive that I once heard about a Lemur who graduated from Penn State a few years back. fintler (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
suprised keep - not a joke article, and actually very well sourced. Artw (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced, and is verifiable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an afterthought to my Keep preference, if we find permissible articles about Dr. Johnson's cat, and the first Iberian lynx to breed in captivity, and a cat who rescued her kittens from a burning building in Brooklyn, surely we can find room for this one. Seduisant (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjects have not received significant coverage in secondary sources, shown by the fact that most are only attributed to one source. Also, aggregation of these non-notable cats into a list does not qualify the subject as notable.Bladeofgrass (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename. I've just redirected the article about dogs with diplomas here because it's silly one-item list. So the article should cover diploma mills cases in general. --Tone 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Comment I've moved some of the comments down to their proper places in the sequence (including one about self-importance; the irony!). And I've added a talk header as a reminder, though I'm surprised it's necessary. I've also taken a couple of the single-purpose tags out; the contributors have other unrelated edits, so it looks like a put-down. as for the subject; it's a laugh, isn't it? Swanny18 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced, interesting and informative. I would also like to see a page on 'List of cats with legitimate diplomas'. AOEUZZN (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to vote for WP:IAR on this one. The title is just so ridiculously funny, it charmed the hell out of me, and I would consider it a loss to the encyclopedia if it were deleted. On policy grounds I could point to the article's length and say that it is worthy of a separate article, as part of a "series" with Diploma mill. Equazcion (talk) 01:22, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Keep or Merge with Diploma mill. This information is edifying and entertaining in equal measure. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'cause WP:ILIKEIT. Plus, I believe this meets our notability and sourcing guidelines. Maybe it should be expanded to List of domestic animals with diplomas, or similar. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an informative and encyclopedic article on a notable subject. This nomination reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. fucking edit conflict Crafty (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's well cited, it's interesting, it's well written, and it covers a serious topic: fraudulent degrees. People have been fired for less. RussNelson (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This may look like a frivolous topic, but there's some serious history behind it, and it still has a serious purpose. This article was created 5 years ago. Until 29 October, the article was called Colby Nolan and it focused on a particularly well-known case of a cat with a fraudulent diploma. (Colby's degree actually helped with the successful fraud prosecution of one diploma mill.) Apparently someone concluded that that Colby was more notable than the diploma mill that awarded Colby's degree, so the page for the diploma mill was set up as a redirect to Colby Nolan (and now it points to this article, due to the recent renaming). The article as it existed before 29 October focused on Colby Nolan and contained a short list of "similar incidents". After the recent AfD for Oreo Collins (another cat on the list of similar incidents), someone apparently decided to repurpose the article as a list. The unintended result of that sensible action is that a perfectly sensible-looking article that had existed for 5 years suddenly started looking frivolous and became a target for deletion. Please keep the article as a consolidated place for information about all of the cats who have received fraudulent degrees. I've revised the intro to provide more emphasis on the serious aspects of the topic. --Orlady (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why cats? have other animals/objects also been used this way? shouldnt the article be about, "fradulent diplos given to nonexistent people"? i support renaming if its kept.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As trivial and sardonic as this entry may be, the amount of necessary and relevant information here is well-collected and arranged. The article is quite fitting with the style and tone of Wikipedia. —Down10 ^TACO 03:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though this article is unusual, the nominator has not provided a valid deletion rationale. The article is reliably sourced and since cats with fraudulent diplomas have received non-trivial coverage in reliable, neutral, third-party sources, it's not synthesis to create a list of such cats. The argument for deletions rests mostly on a small-minded and unworthy notion of what an encyclopedia should be; let's reject this and be a better encyclopedia than that. Proposals for rename should be considered, but there is no valid basis for deleting this notable, reliably-sourced content. --JayHenry (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Celebrities with Blue Eyes? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that you understand that the problem with a List of celebrities with blue eyes is not a problem of synthesis. If you're not aware of this I will ask you to take the time to actually read WP:NOR before I will discuss it further. By the way, these aren't famous cats that happen to have fraudulent diplomas. These are cats that are only significant because they have fraudulent diplomas. See the big difference? --JayHenry (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is relevant to my interests. --95.209.115.42 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is relevant to my interests as well. Foggymyst (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. The subject is notable (Henriette Goldacre alone has had plenty of media coverage; the coverage is about the integrity of academic qualifications, and is not merely celebrity puffery); the article is well-sourced (and thus not OR); and for similar reasons, verifiable. But separating cats from dogs does appear to be undue weight. And my word, there are some peculiar single-purpose and IP votes on both sides here. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with AlexTiefling, the subject matter has value and is well-documented, and should be merged with List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. This will improve both articles and serve to document a serious and noteworthy situation. dotlizard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Agree with AlexTiefling, et. al. The general subject of fraud is clearly important, and the use of named, living (or once living) co-inhabitants (pets) has sufficient emotional appeal that it suggests that there may be an important part of human physiology and psychology involved, such as Mirror neurons. Elroymatrix (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, there are animals with fradulent diplomas. I do not see a solid rationale for why they should be corraled into a list format, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Well referenced, informative, factual, and too long to merge into the article on diploma mills. Should be retitled "animals with fraudulent diplomas" perhaps? What makes this worth keeping is that it is not just a list of people being silly with their cats, it is a series of cases where people have used animals to demonstrate the issuing of fraudulent diplomas, leading to at least one court case. I do not see the need for it to be entitled as a list format, though. Average Earthman (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' (though merge content from the dog and other such articles). Well-sourced, with a clear criterion for inclusion. The phenomenon (of people registering pets for qualifications in institutions with low standards for admission) is well-established. —BillC ^talk 14:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Merging with Diploma mill would bloat that article too much. The purpose of this list is to provide a very strong and easy to grasp argument about how diploma mills work. ChaTo (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas per ChaTo et al. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A valid article that encompasses well-sources, notable, and perfectly acceptable content. I see no compelling reason to simply delete it. That said, I think it would be better as a general article rather than a list. However editorial decisions are beyond the scope of AfDs, so I vote "keep". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas, pointing out that List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas has already been redirected. This is a notable topic, and there are many reliable sources in the article supporting that. As mentioned above, there really isn't a reason to distinguish between dogs and cats here; the notablity does not come from a cat getting a diploma, it comes from a non-human animal getting a diploma. (Scientifically, yes, humans are animals. Colloquially they aren't, so this should be fine.) — The Earwig @ 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not lug List of dogs with fraudulent diplomas in the same category. That was a weak article with no references that was created just yesterday with a grand total of 128 bytes. There is absolutely NO compelling argument to move this article. Vodello (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be sufficiently notable and verifiable. And amusing :) DWaterson (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these cats are doing gods work and deserve their place in history. Mookee17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SNOW... Tone 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Blackwell

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

I dont feel safe regarding this article about me, too many changes are being made and my privacy is being invaded. Many thanks, Rory Ser33 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 06:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [52]. You pass WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely passes WP:MUSICBIO as well; however, more reliable sources are needed. Subject's concerns valid - recommend that Rory reads WP:BIOSELF for more information. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely passes. This article may have been written as an autobiography, but sooner or later someone else would have written it. He was a significant figure in the British rock 'n' roll scene. I've added some more sources as well and copy-edited. Agree the subject's concerns are valid, although there are no problems at the moment in the article, and the source articles added are fine in terms of their tone and contents, quite complimentary. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person who is the subject is notable. I think this was nominated because the subject/nominator is dissatisfied with his inability to control the content. I would be interested in knowing what specifically Rory finds objectionable. The part he deleted doesn't seem to contain any material that would invade privacy or violate WP:BLP. – jaksmata 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely notable. Article badly needs copy editing though. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is clearly notable. Nominator's basis boils down to a claim of a violation of WP:Avoiding harm. But I see nothing in the article that approaches that, and if there were, the appropriate response would be to correct the article, not to delete it. The subject's dissatisfaction with his inability to control the article content is not a ground for deletion. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Snow Keep. Notable. Also the nominator isn't the subject, but represents the subject (see his talk page). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Doll (album)

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

There are not sources to the album, just for the songs. The article is just speculation and there are no sources to confirm something about it, nor the tracklist, nor the name, nor the confirmed songs, not even enough information to say that it was scrapped by the label. It should be delete because is just an speculation article, and its not even notable. Some references are blogs or thing like those, and the only reliable references only talk about the songs, not about this supposed album. It must be Delete Fortunato luigi (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Britney Spears discography. The album was mentioned by MTV and the Irish Examiner as well as countless other Spanish-language sites. ~~The MTV article does talk about the album itself.~~ However, it's still not enough to assert notability in this case as the album was never released and it doesn't look like it's going to be in the future. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 06:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the MTV article, it mentions the album but talks about the song. My mistake. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^^Which mtv article??? any of the sources of this article is from mtv, all of them are from repertories or blogs. Fortunato luigi (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge per Panyd if better sources can be found. This is highly speculative, and I imagine little of this can be saved. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was never confirmed by Britneys camp.Spears154 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though it was confirmed by Britney Spears herself it is not notable enough due to lack of information about the project. --PlatinumFire 21:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to suggest that the topic is adequately notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Solid: Philanthropy

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

Fanfilm of questionable notability - claims in the article appear overstated, and references are predominately primary sources or blogs. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the "blogs" referenced are exactly the places you'd expect to see videogaming news of this kind. The reason blogs aren't normally accepted as sources is their lack of editorial oversight; Destructoid and PlayStation Official Magazine are both edited. There's also coverage on RockpaperShotgun (here), Kotaku (here), Topless Robot (here) and Gamespy (here). Probably others too but that's four commercial sites with an editorial policy. The vast majority of fan films are certainly non notable, but this is one of the very few to clear the bar. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources means it clears WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the links provided above fall under the category of 'non-trivial coverage' and they're certainly not significant. Completely fails notability criteria for films. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:N - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I'm not sure that your suggestion that multi-paragraph articles headlined with the name of the article subject can be described as "trivial mentions" is supported by policy or by past AfD results. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second Comment - Sorry for the both-barrels commenting, but it's also worth mentioning that the WP:NFILM criteria are aimed at commercial release full-length features. Fan films would rarely pass this test - including the unarguably notable classic Troops - and given that this one is distributed exclusively via the internet a more appropriate critieria might be WP:WEB which it passes criterion 1 of. (And, of course, it passes the more important test at WP:N). - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am similarly unsure that 2-3 paragraphs stating that the film exists and that the author enjoyed it and a link to the film qualifies as significant coverage. Perhaps other editors will disagree. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources listed by DustFormsWords and [53], [54], and [55]. Joe Chill (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; for a fan-film, this is substantial coverage. The cost of the movie and the coordination required to produce it is extraordinary. If this cannot pass notability, it's practically saying that fan films are inherently non-notable, and that's a road we do not want to take. TJRC (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Notability, and the effort put into making something, are not in any way linked. Most of the links above are "Capsule reviews" which are are excluded in the notability criteria. Topless Robot[56] states that he hasn't watched all of the film (yet), and RockPaperShotgun's Kieron Gillon [57] claims he doesn't even intent to watch it. This is way off WP:NF. It is verifiable at least, so if someone wants to briefly mention it in Fan film or somesuch, that's fine. Marasmusine (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The words "capsule review" aren't mentioned at WP:N. There's no requirement for an article writer to have watched the film; it's sufficient merely that they saw fit to comment. As above, the WP:N definition of significant coverage is that "the sources address the subject directly" (headline contains subject name), "in detail" (many sources contain details of creators and budget), "and no original research is necessary to extract the content" (unarguably the case here). It is "more than a trivial mention" (these sites took the time to prepare, submit to editorial, and publish an entire article dedicated to the topic) "but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (well, it is anyway, so that's a bonus, I guess). My impression is that you're importing a separate and higher standard of "significant coverage" than that expressly defined at WP:N, and if you are then it doesn't reflect current policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Capsule reviews are mentioned at the more specific film notability guidelines, which is what both Panyd and I have linked to. It is my opinion that these small submissions are trivial, but I'm not going to kick up a huge fuss if that goes against the concensus. Marasmusine (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Looks like plenty of reliable sourcing here. MuZemike 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has good sources. Especially this one. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus post-expansion is clear that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shkolnaya street

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

Does not establish notability, one sentence. fetch comms 04:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a harmless stub, and the reference cited makes it clear that the street was quite busy (with a streetcar line operating along the street) until a new Moscow Metro line was built and the streetcar line abandoned. Once notable, always notable. There is another Shkolnaya street in St. Petersburg. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:STREETS. It doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines with WP:BLVD, WP:CBD, but may find hope in WP:LANDMARK with the tram lines. I still don't think it passes though since the source itself does not go into detail about the prominence of the road in the 1960s and 1970s; it just has a small mention that it was heavily traveled. Heck, the source says this road is just a "lazy lane" now and has been for some time. Without more detail about how this road was ever notable in the past, it's just not notable enough for an article, so delete. --Triadian (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this street seems to have a rather rich and bloody history. Someone might want to explore that avenue further. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone wants to research the history and expand this stub, I'll withdraw my vote. In its present form, however, it does not even establish notability.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:58, November 6, 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn per NVO's expansion. Keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:21, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Reference proves it exists, and documents its history, but does not establish notability. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ëzhiki. TJRC (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Initially created the article from a red link here after finding sufficient material to bring its quality up to that of other Russian streets. However, if consensus is that Wikipedia is better off without this information, no worry. KingPrometheus (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is there an article on the Russian Wikipedia? I don't know Russian and am unable to check. If so, there may be further information suggesting notability there. TJRC (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. ru:Школьная улица is a disambiguation page with blue links to streets of this name in Lipetsk and St. Petersburg and red links to various others, including one in Tagansky District, Moscow, which, I presume, is the one described in our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - expansion by NVO conclusively demonstrates notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (changed !vote); the expansion clearly asserts and sources notability. (Outstanding work, User:NVO.) TJRC (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete it's a hoax. James086^{Talk | Email} 18:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zenin's Dog museum

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

Look, I suppose any museum could be notable, but the presentation in this unreferenced article fails to convince me. Lacking third-party mentions of significance, it fails the criteria for inclusion. Chutznik (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this isn't a hoax, we really need an article on that dog with a PhD. A search for Zenin Esch does not inspire confidence that he's a "famous businesses executive". --Chris Johnson (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 99.99% sure it's a hoax.--fetch comms 04:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that this museum or Zenin Esch exists. I even tried the online telephone directories at http://www.yellowpages.ca/ and http://www.canada411.ca , and they didn't have anything, and two Toronto newspapers didn't either. I have to conclude, then, that this is a hoax. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The museum mentioned does exist, but it is located on a residential property and is not well known. Secondly, the museum is mostly pseudo-history, and is not intended to mislead anybody. When visiting the museum in person it is well known that any information presented is either exaggerated or based on fictitious events. I now realize that this fact should be noted in the Wikipedia article as not to mislead anybody. I will edit the article to explain this asap, and I welcome any other Wikipedia users to state this on the article if I do not complete this task in the expected time.

Thank you for your time, and I wish to again stress that this is a real operational museum(although clearly and purposely presenting humerus, fictitious information along with some real facts and history) , and important cultural establishment for the grange community.

Owen (Duke) Wilson Redbird —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke red bird (talk • contribs) 04:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ORG and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed with Warrah. Though it is damn amusing Scleaston (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax but I oh how I wish this was true. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assuming a non-hoax, there seems to be nothing on the Internet about it, and for a museum, that is an indication of an extraordinary level of non-notability. The counter-argument presented by User:Duke red bird relies on WP:OR. TJRC (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jukebox. — Jake Wartenberg 00:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallbox

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

Dictionary entry Ma^t_chups 02:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure original research with no hint of a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see these all the time, but this is the first I've heard of this term. Seems WP:NEO to me. GreyWyvern (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jukebox, which adequately covers this. TJRC (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devils Racecourse

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

Not notable film. Prod nomination endorsed by two editors. Despite that prod tag was removed. This is the next step. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 02:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable film from the nebulous future that lacks reliable sources. Original author indef blocked for sock puppetry, if that matters. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, and not clear that film was ever or will ever be released - even the production company's 'website' (such as it is) no longer mentions the film. Additionally, the only mentions of the film I could find were authored by the production company itself. Finally, some new accounts have sprung up trying to remove the deletion tags as well as the text in the article that notes the non-mention of the film by the production company website. I suspect these are WP:SOCK accounts of the original author's now-blocked account. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good points. Thank you. Maybe we can use the services of WP:SPI. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 06:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability nor any assertion that this will even be made. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, advertising and the consensus here is clear. James086^{Talk | Email} 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parcus

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

This falls under the I-can't-believe-I-can't-speedy-this category. Asserted to be non-notable product that does not even make a claim of notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no claim of notability. SchuminWeb shows great restraint for not speedying this under "G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion." TJRC (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear claim of significance and no citing of independent sources. Given that MCC is the name of the company that makes the device, and the original editor is User:Milevmcc, there is also a conflict of interest in play here. —C.Fred (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Deviously referenced advertising. GreyWyvern (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to In re Bilski. JForget 21:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Bilski

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

Bernard Bilski is the first-named inventor on a patent that was the subject of the In re Bilski case at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals last year, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Bilski-the-person has no notability whatsoever apart from this case. This is about as clear as an example of WP:BLP1E as it gets. There is no coverage of Bilski-the-person other than as related to Bilski-the-case. The article on the person has no information that is not already present in the article on the case. I redirected, but that has been reverted. TJRC (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —TJRC (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC) t[reply]

Normally I would agree that this article should be deleted for the reasons stated above. Originally, however, it was set up as a redirect to fixed bill. This caused confusion among readers so I created a stub in hopes of attracting more information about the inventor. --Nowa (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In re Bilski, as the present article gives no additional information. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like BLP1E to me. If the individual is notable apart from the case, the assertion isn't made in the article. Therefore, Redirect to In re Bilski. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a redirect to In Re Bilski, is that it ignores the most important accomplishment of Bernard Bilski, which is the invention of fixed bill energy pricing. This is notable apart from the current case before the Supreme Court that bears his name.--Nowa (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that that's notable apart from the patent case. If that were so, every named inventor on a US patent -- and there are thousands annually -- would be inherently notable. TJRC (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Google News Search on Bilski for articles that do not mention the patent case.--Nowa (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That search yields seven articles over a 20-year (1990-2009) period; three of them are company press releases. Which of the other four are you relying on to establish notability? TJRC (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there is no coverage specific to the individual. Notability to come perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may make sense to consider as well for deletion or redirect the second-named inventor, Rand Warsaw, and their company, WeatherWise USA. --Edcolins (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I was planning on AfDs for those as well. I didn't want to waste my time on them if this one had gotten shot down, though. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not at all notable. No sources say it is.Cynof Gavuf 12:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 21:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Guru Govinda Swamy Mattam & Sri Meenakshi Narmadeswara Temple, Palugurallapalle, B.Mattam (Mandal) Kadapa Dist A.p

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

This long unsourced article seems more like a personal reflection than like an encyclopedic entry. It needs urgent rewriting from an expert on the subject, which I haven't exactly identifyied. A CSD for lack of context was requested, but declined due to the actual presence of context. A second CSD by me for advertising/promotion was also declined (I didn't know I couldn't request a second different CSD) so I'm taking this to AfD as suggested. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced. The source, however, is a difficult to find printed book. This is an interesting test for our concept that such sources are acceptable. I can think of no way to draw a demarkation line that they aren't. The author of that book is apparently a fairly well known writer: [58]. The book, according to the BL, has the subject: Cuddapah (India : District) -- History., which is appropriate. We really have been having a problem with these articles on Indian temples--they probably are many of them actually notable, but extremely few people here are in a position to get information. And then we need to disentagle the information about the temple and the various people connected with it. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reflexively I had intended to recommend deletion, but David has convinced me otherwise. Caveat lector applies, but assuming the article is based on a legitimate source, it ought to stay. I have cleaned up the article and changed the title. Chutznik (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I live in the state AP and I've never heard about this temple I recommend deletion of this article as it is an unreferenced POV or OR if it would've have been notable we would find references or sources online as English is India's official language.The name of the article includes two temples and their location (The district,state...) One of the temples Sri Meenakshin Narmadewara Temple gives a single result on google .--NotedGrant Talk 06:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proper reference and does not meet notabilityLinguisticgeek (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The temples might be notable, although I don't believe this single reference establishes that. However this article isn't about the temples at all, it is mainly about a person called Sri Guru Govinda Swamy. I say delete with no objection to recreation if someone writes an article about these temples that demonstrates notability. This is why I orginally speedied for no context, as it wasn't clear what the actual subject of the article was. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: Mattam and temple are in same place in Palugurallapalle village Near Brahmangari Mattam. I have seen the temple and I will recommend people to visit the temple and mattam before they recommending for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.51.217 (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't been able to find any reliable source coverage to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the evidence but it is in Telugu (indian language) and copy availbel

in British Library London, see page 25 onwards, writer Janamanchi is a famous telugu writer

and he has written about Swamy and his mattam cum temple in 1929 and published in 1930. System number 009314868 Author - personal Śēādriśarma, Janamañci. Title Kaapa maala caritramu / Janamañci Śēādriśarma. Edition 2nd ed. Publisher/year (Cennapuri : Vāvia Rāmasvāmi Śāstri & Sons, 1930. Physical descr. 4, 91 p. : map. ; 18 cm. Subject Cuddapah (India : District) -- History. Shelfmark 14174.g.67(1) Request

So I would recommend to keep this artcle under Indian Hindu Temples —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.52 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 22:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooshang Heshmat

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

Resume-ish article doesn't establish notability. JaGa^talk 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup the style. This source says he is a fellow of ASME, satisfying criterion 3 of WP:ACADEMIC. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jujutacular Hobit (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this appears to be a clear breach of WP:BLP. None of the extraordinary claims being made about this individual are support by reliable secondary sources, and in this case they are highly promotional claims. There seems to be clear conflict of interest/original research issues related to this and the related corporate articles, as they are written by an editor with extensive inside information but the source of this information is not disclosed. Better to delete now and restate later, but only if evidence of notability is provided by independent sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Gavin Collins above: The issues you describe with the article are problems, but can be resolved through editing. I agree the article is unverified and promotional, but this can easily be resolved, and deletion is not required. Notability is established through satisfaction of WP:ACADEMIC. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the content is unsourced, WP:ACADEMIC cannot be used as excuse for self-promotion. This article needs more than just editing; there needs to be verifiable evidence of notability in the form of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Extraordinary claims to notability such as he "has been responsible for major advances in this field" need to be well sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- WP:ACADEMIC applies to people in academia, which Dr. Heshmat is not. I'm not sure that the WP:BLP strictures necessarily apply here, though -- although the material is currently unsourced, it's a stretch to call it contentious. Calling the article self-promotion is questionable - is there any evidence that the subject himself wrote this article? The real question is, can notability be demonstrated? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This from the ASME site might help. I'd also be curious how many Fellows of the ASME there are. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merge content with his company.Martinlc (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect -- Merging the content with his company seems to make sense to me, too. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why are we even discussing this? No RS notability. The company just about passes notability, as it appears to have won some awards, but even that is borderline. No refs in either article. Physchim62 (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick look at Google news and books shows that he is fairly well known in his field. Article should cite sources of course. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a borderline G11 speedy - it's about as close to a resume, press release or puff piece that you can get. ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've rewritten the article to remove all the spammy bits. I believe notability is quite clearly shown as a verifiable fellow of ASME and STLE. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improvements to article provide sufficient evidence of notability, particularly the award given by a highly reputable/notable professional organization. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reading the ASME description of what it takes to become a fellow, I'm not convinced that it's selective enough by itself to force a keep here. It seems one can become a fellow merely by holding a middle management position in engineering (ASME criterion #5) and being active for ten years. But the Hersey award seems much more exclusive, and is enough for me to feel this should be kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a member of a trade or professional organisation (even for 10 years) or winning an award is not evidence of notability on its own. If professional membership qualifications or awards are not backed up by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, then its not prima facie evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep per David Eppstein. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I read a rough consensus for keep, though there is a reasonable editorial argument for merger. There's no reason the merger discussion can't continue after this closes.Kubigula (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zavvi.com

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

I cannot find any sources to indicate that this website is notable. Nothing I've found covers it in any depth at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. -- ISLANDERS27 07:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources [59] [60] [61] - please see WP:BEFORE 龗 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst merge to ~~either Zavvi or~~ The Hut Group. Some more sources: [62], [63]. --Chris Johnson (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am aware of both sets of sources listed above, and I get a bit irritated about mentions of WP:BEFORE (for the reason that it's calling me a liar when I make it clear I looked, and for the reason we need a corresponding WP:BEFORESTARTINGANARTICLE, or rather already do.) However, those sources largely cover Zavvi, not its website specifically. I don't think there's any doubt the parent company is notable, but those sources make me doubt further whether the website is in its own right. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the parent company. Zavvi went under. The Hut Group essentially purchased the brand and website and relaunched it as a distinct entity. Our sources specifically related to the relaunch. Honestly, if this is a merge, it should be a merge to The Hut Group#Zavvi.com, not the Zavvi article. I actually agree it's not really appropriate to cite BEFORE in this situation given these complexities. --Chris Johnson (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any missing information to Zavvi#Zavvi.co.uk, then redirect to the same. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Zavvi or The Hut Group. Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems notable.. South Bay (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Merge discussion can occur at the article's talk page if needed. Jayron32 05:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middleworld

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

delete, neither modern Maya researchers nor the ancient Maya themselves use the term "Middleworld" to describe the Earth, in Maya cosmology, mythology or any context at all. It's a conceit originating from the (fiction) book of the same name, by J&P Voelkel. We already have articles on the Maya underworld, the world tree, and so on. None of the info in this article needs to be transferred, it can safely be deleted as fiction. cjllw ʘ TALK 07:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —cjllw ʘ TALK 08:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per my reasoning in Jaguar stones AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that Middleworld IS a concept and a term used by Maya academics and the Maya. I have quoted one use of the term "Middleworld" inthe article, I could find you a whole bunch more. The Maya of course, don't say Middleworld because they usually speak their own languages rather than English - in Yucatec it would be Yok’ol Kab’ (literally surface world). Neatguy (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2009 (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) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Gbooks hits show many examples of the term being used and they are not novels. Edward321 (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's contention that this term isn't used by modern researchers has been neatly refuted by the addition of this source to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One could argue to rename an article if one felt that it was named incorrectly, but deleting it when it is this well sourced is not going to happen. Abductive (reasoning) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I suggest merging it with the Maya article. South Bay (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dongling

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

Vanity page. No third party coverage that I could find. Perhaps chinese sources exists. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is a online source from China's Xinhua News Agency about Dongling making the world's largest electro dymanic shaker in 2007. http://www.js.xinhuanet.com/xin_wen_zhong_xin/2007-01/12/content_9030988.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.224.132.203 (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a company specializing in manufacturing vibration test equipment. Their wares may be important for testing vehicle and other engines; but the customer base for anything like that is going to be pretty small and specialized, and as such reviewed only in "media of limited interest and circulation" if at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added some reliable sources (including Xinhuanet and People's Daily Online) to prove its notability. --Pengyanan (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking (with the assistance of Google translate) at the references added to the page by Pengyanan leaves no doubt as the the notability of this company. J04n(talk page) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work. It needs cleanup and more sourcing. It does not look like it was created by someone whose native language is English. But taking its claims as true, the subject is a good-sized company that is a significant supplier to China's manned space program. That meet the notability threshold for me. It should probably be renamed to "Dongling Vibration" or "Dongling Zhendong." In all fairness to the nom, I would probably have gone with "Delete" in the state it was in when the nomination was made. There was no assertion of any fact that screamed out "Notable!" to me at that point. TJRC (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beast (B2ST)

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

No claim of notability; at least, no sources to confirm the one thin claim to notability. Fails WP:Notability (music). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I declined the speedy on this one. A search on the actual group name "B2ST" turns up a large number of Google News (not just web) hits, see here. You can't always rely on the find sources template, it take the literal title of the article as the search term. Unfortunately, I can't read Korean at all, so I can't evaluate whether any of these sources are reliable enough to show notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't matter whether there are sources, there's no claim of notability for the sources to support. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I added sources that prove notability. MS (Talk|Contributions) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Weak Keep~~ Keep- The group seems to pass WP:MUSIC criteria #1. The page just needs to be cleat up. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Page now meets WP:GNG. Change to keep. MS (Talk|Contributions) 04:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets criteria 1 & 12 of WP:BAND, thus shows that the group is notable enough to receive coverage from a wide range of newspapers --^N_P^e_e^e_r^b_v^s_e^s_z (Push) 22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I ran all of the Korean sources through 'Google translate' and there just wasn't enough there. As for criterion 12 mentioned above; I assume it was their MTV appearance, it would have to have been at least 30 minutes of coverage and I can't quantify the length by the references. The clincher for me was their Korean Wikipedia page, which is translated here, there's not even anything there to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 05:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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