Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 13

< 12 February	14 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob.stp

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

Google News archive searches on "Rob.stp" (with or without a space after the period) are not turning up anything, and I'm not even really finding anything significant on a search of blogs. If Rob.stp was in fact a driving force behind the Austrian drum and bass scene, that fact does not seem to have been covered in reliable secondary sources. As such subject does not seem notable enough for an article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete': I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are plenty of references to his remixes out there, eg [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], but I couldn't really claim they're sufficient to confer notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried going through Google, news archives, etc. I don't see enough reliable secondary sources. --Joe Decker (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nick Price (actor)

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

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

Keep - there's info on him on imdb website. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1144504/ He's notable enough (Marinesuper (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Just FYI, IMDB is not considered a reliable source, and simply having an entry there does not at all make one notable. You'd need evidence of coverage in reliable secondary sources in order to argue that he's "notable enough." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigtimepeace', I don't know what else is a better source than [6]. I'll have a look then and see if I can post some secondary sources. Just having a look at The Three Investigators and the Secret of Terror Castle, I'm starting to think that this should never have been considered for deletion. He has second billing as Peter Crenshaw. I'm also looking at the comments for the movie The Terror Castle Message Board, gooing on what I have seen as comments for other films that are considered mainstream with main stream "deemed to be very notable "actors, I think that this is an indication of notability. That's why I vote to Keep the article! (Marinesuper (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT. Lugnuts (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article certainly needs cleanup and sourcing, but the kid's career seems to push at WP:ENT. To seperate him from the golfer, and using his name in connection with a project name, shows proper non-IMDB WP:Verification of his career and seems indicative of perhaps enough to improve the article... for instance, his name and "Because of Winn Dixie shows reviews that speak toward his perfromance. Article sure needs work though. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those, but they don't really "speak toward his performance," they just mention that he's in the movie. In order to write an article, we need to be able to say something about him via sources, and I can't see this being anything more than a list of films a la IMDB. My argument for deletion is that he clearly fails WP:GNG, but even if we're talking WP:ENT I think it's clear he has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films" which is the only criteria there he could remotely be considered to pass. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No recommendation yet. The supporters of this article would be best off adding reliable independent sources to the article to help establish the subject's notability, which seems to be a judgment call. I can't say unequivocally yet that he is or isn't notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, those opining delete have no motivation to ever improve an article, and those opining a keep are then pressured (even if politely) to do the work that the delete opinions will not. We've seen this at AFD over and over and over... and I have myself improved a fair number of artcles that were sent to AFD so that they were soundly kept. Has guideline now changed? Is AFD indeed supposed to be used to force improvement? Isn't guideline supported opinion that an article is improvable enough? WP:HEY anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it makes sense for editors among the "keep" supporters to do the work of improving the article during AfD, since they are the ones who want the article to still be there after the AfD is over. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I read many of the Rotten Tomatoes reviews of Because of Winn-Dixie - only one even bothers to mention his name. He's on the verge, but not quite there yet IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we can't even verify his career or find any reliable sources. I think Imdb is OK, but having only one marginal source is not enough. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Google searches are not reliable sources in and of themselves; if there are any; they should have been added to the article or brought up in the discussion. Sandstein 06:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentric individualism

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

Sloppy, unsourced, etc. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Clean/Source Scholar search returns a huge number of references to the phrase, which is pretty idiosyncratic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to add an additional caveat/thought: the phrase seems to be used in reference to a broad topic. The article is about something one man wrote. A News search reveals the one man's article (which is in a verifiable source, but is obviously primary material). Article likely requires a fundamental rewrite. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not just include the theory in the article about the author, if he is notable enough to warrant an article? The theory doesn't seem that significant, and could probably be summarized in a few sentences on his bio article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says it is about one person's theories. That person does not have his own article and this article has no secondary sources. If "biocentric individualism" is something more than this (I am not saying it isn't) then a totally new article needs to be written on it. So either way delete this one as non-notable (or else provide sources that it is notable.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't really find any good sources; this doesn't seem notable. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Varner's resume, here (pdf) mentions Biocentric Individualism twice, showing he's contributed to the topic, but it doesn't make it sound like he was the originator of it. And here, it says "Varner defends a form of biocentric individualism", suggesting he might have his own version of it, but again not supporting the claim that he originated the concept itself. There are other papers on the same topic too, by a number of authors, but I can find nothing that supports the claim that Biocentric Individualism originated with Varner. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I googled it, and it is a real topic, but this article needs a LOT of work. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please share your findings - I would like to see some wp:rs? ErikHaugen (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The entirety of the one-sentence unsourced content is already in the article Babozai. If there is any substantial sourced content that makes this subtribe notable, the article can be recreated. Sandstein 06:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nangir Khel

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

The only information I can find about the location is regarding the Nangar Khel incident. This in itself does not make the city notable. I cannot find any more sources, seems to fail WP:NTEMP NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whe whole point of this deletion is is this a tribe or a city/town. If it is a city/town I vote keep, but it is hard to determine which one it is. Looking back, you might keep it per WP:DEFACTONativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a stub. What is the point of having stubs available as a prompt for expansion if they are going to be deleted? The nominator's reference to "the city" suggests a lack of acquaintance with the text which refers to the subject as a "tribe". Wikipedia editors often seem determined to reinforce Wikipedia's already excessive ethnocentricity. Opbeith (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nangir Khel is a very small branch of the clan Babozai. This branch exists only in Aloch, Puran and the total population of the tribe may be a few hundreds. It is proposed that the author may include this in the main article on Babozai tribe.--Seraj-ul-Haq 17:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serajulhaque (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —CordeliaNaismith (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article deals with a tribe, not a city or location. Or am I wrong? I can't find any informations about the subject, unrelated to Wikipedia. However, the problem could be caused by misspelling or simply by lack of references in English language. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's already included in Babozai, and this article adds nothing to that - if some notable information should be found about the various sub-sub-tribes, it can easily go in the main article. (It's arguable that Babozai should be split into two, one for the Pakistani town and one for the tribe, but that's for another time and place) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Agraceful

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

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

Not quite sure. They have one release on Sumerian Records which seems marginally notable (distributed by Red Distribution, a fairly non-trivial artist roster), and there is one review in the Cleveland Leader. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~That is the review that is user-submitted—essentially a blog entry. It is not actually part of the newspaper.~~ ^Bongo_matic 05:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's use submitted and not by someone who legitimately works for the paper? (There were three user submitted reviews in one of their album articles, which I redirected.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. However, the Leader claims to be a blog. See its advertising page. This is not the historical newspaper. ^Bongo_matic 05:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Multiple, non-trivial coverage from reliable, verifiable sources required. If all we're going off of to confer notability is a review in the Cleveland Leader, that's not passing the standard. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And to the Sumerian Records point, the band needs to release more than one album (and then we need to decide that Sumerian is "one of the more important indie labels"). Relevant quote: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels."
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that I'm certain of the lack of verifiability regarding the few reviews I've found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nick Play Date

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

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

G3 Egregious hoax. Something associated with Nickelodeon would certainly turn up more than WP mirrors, and would definitely turn up at least a couple hits on Google News. Even The Brothers Flub turns up a few hits here and there. (ETA: This is a copy of Nick Jr. (block) with some stuff changed.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious hoax. Get rid of it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

2005 Hito Top 100 Singles

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

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

Delete There is nothing to confer notability on this particular topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there are still many citation needed tags, the consensus is clear in the later half of the discussion to keep mostly because of the sources according to many JForget 00:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pixar film references

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

Entirely original research. Literally every source is the film itself, without a secondary source verifying that these are indeed intentional references by the filmmakers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm usually very cautious when falling on the side of "delete" on an article of as long standing and with as many contributions as this, but the reference situation is both absurd and unsolvable. The one caveat I will offer is this: if the list can be pared to verifiable Pixar references, then I see no reason to delete. But... a) that will probably leave us with a very short list and b) that will inevitably be a list which is realistically incomplete. Uhm. I'm babbling. In short, yeah, a lot of work has been done on this article but it's pure, uncut original research at this point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this belongs on the IMDB.com trivia pages, not here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will refrain from siding on the "Keep" or "Delete" side of the fence -- I have been quite active in maintaining this page and would prefer "Keep", but I also trust TenPoundHammer's opinion and agree with his "Delete" criteria. That said, I would like to turn you to this week's entry in discovering Pixar easter eggs over at /film, and to Toy Story 3 director Lee Unkrich's Twitter feed from this week where he explictly talks about easter eggs in the upcoming film and recently released trailer here, here, and here for starters. I mention this as a response to TenPoundHammer's question about whether these are intentional references by the filmmaker or not. As for the references being the film itself, I point out that the timecodes in the article references are used to pinpoint the specific moment in the films the occurrence exists, as opposed to simply saying "it's in the film, trust us" and using a generic film ref. SpikeJones (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that's much help. The Twitters are primary sources, and citing the film itself is original research. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have a secondary article from an oft-cited site (/film, for example) that quotes the filmmaker (via twitter or otherwise directly) saying that they intentionally place these references in their films. That should count, yes? SpikeJones (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one secondary source though. Everything else is primary or OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's widely published and discussed that Pixar films often reference one another. You can listen to commentaries by the creators and artists on the discs, visit sites like slashfilm and others to see where easter eggs are discussed, etc. The main reason for citations of the films themselves is that other editors have asked for documentation of where the reference occurs in the original film. So of course the page would have multiple listings of citations from the original works. I've contributed many to the article.

A list of secondary sources that could be/are used:

Your entire supposition "Entirely original research. Literally every source is the film itself, without a secondary source verifying that these are indeed intentional references by the filmmakers." is indeed false and is easily proven so by references within the article itself to slashfilm, Pixar blogs, JimHillMedia, the LA Times, etc. that you conveniently overlook. Additionally, you dismiss the tweets by the creator of one such film as "not much help" when you are claiming that there are no outside sources when it specifically addresses your claim that it's not verifying whether the references are intentional. I'd offer that if the creator of a work is discussing pertinent material - regardless of media - that it is a secondary source considering it is NOT the film itself and is referring to the film. (Is that not the definition of a secondary source?) Referencing the family of Pixar films in subsequent or earlier films is a noted part of the Pixar culture and is identified with the brand itself - e.g. with ever new Pixar release there are multiple sites and blogs that hunt for such references.

Perhaps more sources away from the films need to be included, but the grounds for deletion are dubious at best.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding some of the more reputable sources, but forums are to be avoided. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'm just citing other locations of this information. But given the prevalence of coverage on review sites and in other media, the topic is notable and is part of Pixar itself. It also serves as a useful tool and the page is ranked highly in Google searches so it's providing somewhat useful information. Therefore it shouldn't be deleted. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interview with Pixar's John Lassetter by MTV has John specifically addressing putting references into Pixar films: We do little homages in our films... unbiased 3rd-party? Check. Pixar staff explicitly stating including references in films? Check. Me, beating a dead horse? Check. SpikeJones (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially a collection of trivia without proper context. Whatever useful information there is is best merged into the individual film articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing all references in the specific films would create pages that are overlong and would presumably inspire another individual to recreate this page. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No to the former, and the latter is pure conjecture. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page was broken out from the primary Pixar page because that page was getting overly long. By having a central location of all references, it also keeps each individual film article from having a references (or as some have called it, "trivia") section of their own. SpikeJones (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would think that this article needs to stay, it's an attempt to collect all the PIXAR references into one article, the page also has over 32,000 bytes of information, it's very useful. Furthermore, I'm pretty shocked that this has been nominated for deletion, because of the reasons I explained above. Admittely, I haven't learnt wikipedia's original research rules, but I still think this article is worth keeping. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Furthermore, deleting the page may result in someone in near furture re-creating the page, since it's needed for several purposes. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the dismissive note that this is purely original research, which is shown to be false, it seems the consensus so far is to keep the page and include more third-party sources, including the original poster. Can the Delete note be removed and replaced with a need more resources note regarding third party pages? Pejorative.majeure (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is still forming. Let the AfD take its course. There's nothing to stop you from improving the page with third party sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems like pure trivia to me. I guess that sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it's hard to give a more precise rationale; despite the references given above, I'm just not convinced this is an encyclopaedic subject for an article. Perhaps it could be cut down and merged somewhere? Robofish (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On page 297 of the Disney-Pixar published book, ISBN 978-0756654320 Pixarpedia, the introductory text for that section says Learn the significance of "A-113" and how it appears in every Disney-Pixar feature. Take a closer look at each film and spot all the secret cross references.... If this content is important enough for Disney to include in a Pixar-specific encyclopedia of their own, one would think it would qualify here. On the bright side, that book section would qualify for references in addition to the help timecodes that we've been using so far. SpikeJones (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are "help timecodes"? --Bejnar (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Third party sources are a bit thin on the ground, but there are certainly enough secondary sources to make this not OR. Unfortunately, I think that the claim this is "pure trivia" is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many topics seem trivial to many, or even most, readers but as long as they are covered in specialty encyclopedias like Pixarpedia there seems little reason to exclude them from Wikipedia (WP:NOTPAPER etc.). Note that if once the OR is trimmed out of the article it ends up being quite short, I don't have an issue with a merge, I am just not sure where would be a good target though. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources, ADD. THEM. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and focus on improving refs. While I hestitated in expressing an opinion earlier, the subsequent discussion with TenPoundHammer identified what the issues in the article were that can be overcome by keeping the piece. Recommend keeping the article and improving the references contained therein as repeated by those above. We'll need to better identify what others are calling WP:OR vs the citable items, but that falls under "article improvement" and the talk page. SpikeJones (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as a random intersect between two concepts. The concept of a Pixar film reference is not an independently notable one so a list of such, especially one so thinly sourced, is not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. What two concepts? Hobit (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Eluchil404, but continue to work on sourcing. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a no-brainer. Lots of good citable info, that many readers are interested in. Will somebody please think of the children.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nick Gibbons

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

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

Delete as PRODer. Sorry, I didn't check the logs to find that this article had previously been deleted via PROD. Wine Guy~Talk 04:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Erik Baker

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

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

Comment – To closing Admin - if this article is deleted, please remove redirect Erik Baker the Artists and repertoire (Erik Baker the A&R).
Note already done as implausible redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Reads like a resume, certainly self-promotion. ttonyb (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should have been speedy deleted under A7 - the author removed the speedy deletion tag, so I don't know why this had to come to AfD. Clearly promotional. Smappy (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is -maybe- a near miss on A7 (I think A7 applies but I can see how one might disagree) but a pretty clear G11, which it is currently nominated for. This is a resume. I mean, literally, this is what the Wikipedia article about me would look like if I started pasting all the sentences in my resume into the article. No. Delete.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the ongoing dispute regarding the speedy tags appears to have been between the original author of the article and the person(s) placing speedy tags. By which I mean, the original author kept deleting the speedy tag. I don't see how this is considered an ongoing dispute and justification for procedurally removing the speedy tagging and redirecting to AfD. I have to think this is some kind of mistake, right? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotion of music industry middleman non-notable per WP:CREATIVE. MuffledThud (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete The article seems to be promotional in nature A7 or G11.

Weak delete Ok, so someone had CSD'd it, which rather hid the AFD. I didn't agree with the CSD, moved the article to a shorter name, and deleted the implausible redirect noted above. Then I saw this AFD. I think that based on this person's history, they do meet some notability requirements. This article itself needs work to stay, so if someone can fix it, it may be alright (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Most of the entry isn't even about him, it's simply a boilerplate description of A&R work with his name pasted in. Hairhorn (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per above. Working with notable artists doesn't make you inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Ultra Q monsters. Black Kite 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juran (Ultra monster)

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

Non-notable monsters of the week from the Ultra man series, all the articles are totally unreferenced.

Ok that should be enough for now, there are still dozens to go through. Ridernyc (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge all into a list. If there is already a list, redirect to it. Should be the default treatment for material of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is a list somewhere, not sure which one would be the right one though. Once you start exploring you find lists, of lists, of sublists.....

Delete- as unsourced fancruft. A merge is not appropriate for the following reasons: a) the material to be merged is unsourced fancruft, b) the lists into which this junk is to be merged are already choc-a-block full of unsourced fancruft, don't need any more and are probably good candidates for deletion themselves, and c) most of these articles were already spun out of the lists against the good advice here, which suggests that articles about fiction should not degenerate into a mass of excessive in-universe coverage about trivia. Reyk _YO! 05:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just so people have an idea of how big this problem is take look here Ultra_Monsters, when you first look at you think not bad most of them don't have articles. Then you start scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. I'm sorry but I don't think merging is a realistic option. First there is no way anyone is going to do the work to straighten out the mess and perform the merges. Second even if we do merge we end up with this List_of_Ultra_Q_monsters and I'm sorry but I don't see that as any sort of improvement. Ridernyc (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of the mentioned articles already have some skin on them and can be improved. Most are definitely not "non-notable" (just look at the japanese pages for them, for example Kanegon which is very notable) and interesting source for people not familiar with them. Shocklord (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate list. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I just edited and referenced the Kanegon article, and will do so shortly for the other Monsters as well. The Ultra Q monsters from the 60s are an important element of japanese culture and deserve an entry. After all, there are articles for King Kong and Gill-man and nobody's questioning them. Rather than deletion, the improvement of these articles should be encouraged. Shocklord (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through your second keep !vote, we only get one go each. Someone another 18:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ultra Q monsters so as not to lose the content. Like all character articles, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in order to establish notability for these. Shocklord has located two good sources, Kaiju Fan and Sci Fi Japan, both of which are episode guides, one for Ultra Q and the other for Ultra Q: Dark Fantasy. They don't cover the monsters in enough detail to warrant individual articles, but they point to what we should have here, episode lists like this. A decent, verified episode list would knock these individual articles and the list of Ultra Q Monsters into a cocked hat in terms of reader usability and compliance with misc. policies and guidelines. Someone another 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all If there is enough to fill an article on its own, it deserves its own article. If not, a redirect to a list article can be done. Probably find more sources in Japanese news and book sources. Dream Focus 01:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Delete all~~ As Someoneanother said, what little objective material there is should be saved but even after Shocklord's treatment of Kanegon I see no secondary sources establishing notability for the monster, just for the episodes. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check [7] or type "カネゴン"(Kanegon) into google and you'll very easily see it's notable. Just because you never heard of something doesn't mean it should not be mentioned in wikipedia. Every child in Japan knows the story of Kanegon. Shocklord (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Japenese -> English machine translations are terrible, but if there actually are sources that can back up what I think that article is saying, then it seems plenty notable enough for an article so I retract my previous opinion. I think the focus needs to be on why it's notable, but that's a problem with many fiction articles, so not a particular issue with this, but please provide sources regarding the real-world notability for articles like this that are harder for english-speakers to search for. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now added references, including few available english-language books, to all monster articles mentioned. Shocklord (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah directories of every character in a series are great for referencing lists of characters not for referencing individual articles. Are you planning on on add 3rd party sources and real world context and character development. Ridernyc (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to delete this as well: Gena_the_Crocodile ?? I really don't understand why people put so much effort into deleting information rather than providing it ... Shocklord (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to List of Ultra Q monsters The articles do contain references, so interested editors can use such sources to aid a merge:

List of sources in Garamon

The Q-Files, Complete Ultra Q Episode Guide by Jim Cirronella & Kevin Grays, Originally published in KAIJU-FAN Issue # 4 November 1996 [8].
Ultra Q Episode Guide [9].
Eiji Tsuburaya: Master of Monsters: Defending the Earth with Ultraman and Godzilla, by August Ragone, Chronicle Books (2007), ISBN 978-0811860789
Ultraman Monster Ultra Large Collection　(orig.: ウルトラ怪獣大全集), Domdom (1995), ISBN 978-4091014115
So Crazy Japanese Toys!, by Jimbo Matison, Chronicle Books (2003), ISBN 978-0811835299

Cunard (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mz Bratt

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

It does not appear that this musician meets the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Wine Guy~Talk 02:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Wine Guy~Talk 02:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article include significant coverage from the Guardian, and a Google News hunt turns up additional non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. I don't see how this fails to meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's my fault, I didn't explain the nom very well. She has only released one single on a notable label ("Who Do You Think You Are?" on All Around the World Productions), although she is not listed on their website. She has also released a second single on a non-notable indie label ("I Like You" on UnX Records). In interpreting MUSICBIO, I pay attention to the wording: "may be notable ... at least one of the following"; in this case, I don't believe the "new artist" articles (like that in the Guardian) make up for the fact she hasn't produced much music yet. Wine Guy~Talk 09:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ginsengbomb. She has had significant independent coverage from the Guardian and FemaleFirst, thus satisfying WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

El Centro metropolitan area

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Optigan13 (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Imperial County, California. There's no real reason to have a stand-alone article here when all it really does is list data that could easily fit in the county article. We already do this for many other statistical areas, and I don't see a convincing reason why this should be an excception. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many statistical metropolitan areas have their own articles, even if they are contiguous with a county. See, for example, San Diego metropolitan area and Oxnard – Thousand Oaks – Ventura, California. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete/Merge~~ San Diego has a population exceeding 3 million people, that one is more important. As for Ventura County, that one should be merged too. House1090 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a key and important economic metropolitan area (the largest in terms of economic diversity in the state) of the Southern Border. It should stay for reference and consistency with the San Diego metropolitan area. In the case of San Diego being more important they are equally important in this sense. It makes for consistency with other metropolitan area articles for it to not be deleted. SoCal L.A. (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imperial County, California. Both articles contain almost identical information, and the county article is more established and has more information. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imperial County, as others have said. The official name should be prefered over an informal name when they both refer to the same thing. Side note: WP exists for the sake of its readers, not its subjects. (i.e. What's important is people who are looking for info on Imperial County, not Imperial County's feelings when it is compared to San Diego County.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. if San Diego County and the San Diego metropolitan area are the same thing merge them too. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same thing. SoCal L.A. (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then AfD the "area" article and you have my "vote." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close with a recommendation to merge and redirect to [[Imperial County, California as per nom. This is not a good use of AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Retrotronics

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

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

Delete/Re-Merge - Appears to be a rare neologism, and is probably better covered as a single paragraph in its original article, Steampunk. - BilCat (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this was a discussed, completely good-faith effort to improve coverage of the term, but the section should probably have been expanded, with citations, in the Steampunk article first, then split off. As it is now, it's just a list of definitions. - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's an overlap with steampunk, that's only one aspect of it. There's a large, maybe greater, crossover with the retro-futurists and that's quite distinct from the steampunks. There's also, probably the longest-established, genre being within audiophile hi-fi, and that has nothing to do with the "scenes". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "retrotronics" name was that suggested by the original proposer, and in the absence of any better suggestions, that's what it was created as. I for one would have no objection to a rename, should anything suggest itself. However I can't think of a term that's quite such a good encapsulation of the movement, without using a clumsy half-dozen words. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-establish at such time and with such title that there is adequate coverage in published secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a place to start a discussion of a field. --Bejnar (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are some reliable sources with articles about the subject matter of the article, but they do not all use the term "retrotronics" to describe the return of vinyl LPs in record stores or the hobby of building vacuum tube radios or crystal radios. I found the term "retrotronics" used in the New York Daily News without any need to explain what it meant, as if it were an obvious reference. An article in Japanese (Google machine translation) used "retrotronics" without elaboration to describe a USB a turntables and a device which transfers audio cassettes to digital devices. Other sources talking about modern use of obsolete turntables and vacuum tubes used the terms "retro-tech," "retro-aesthetic" and "retro flair." Some just say "retro electronics" such as [10], [11] and [12]."Retro electronics" could be used as the article title. (I would exclude coverage of the music style of that name and focus on technology). "Retro-tech" was used back in 1986 for word processors lacking the capabilities of computers. "Retro-tech" might be an appropriate title to move the article to, since it appears to cover the same desire to use yesterday's technologies, and has more references. So there seems to be a kernal of an article there about people preferring media of a bygone era, but it is too amorphous for me to give it a a strong keep. Edison (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I think the concept is certainly notable, and its restriction to electrical and electronic devices seems to be a feature of it, but this specific name is certainly much less so. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept behind the article is widespread, further than steampunk, and is discussed in relevant sources. Naming is a matter for editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a finger in the air guide to interest in this article, the page view statistics are (AFAIK) interesting higher than any other article I've written, particularly a new one. Curious. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Renault Samsung QM5

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

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

Redirect: to Renault Koleos. Renault Samsung QM5 is the Korean version of that. [13] Mattg82 (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mattg82. Seems like a good option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Madu Ragothaman

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

Delete A still unreferenced bio of cricketer of no apparent notabillity—his name did not come up in an internet search (Google, of course). It is possible that I missed something due to spelling or a foreign language source. Supertouch (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Madhu Ragothaman plays for a club in the Millennium Cricket League [14]. I have no views as to notability, I'd just like to remark how unsual - and commendable - Supertouch is in considering the possibility of an alternative foreign spelling. This possibility never seems to enter the brain of Wikipedia's host of ethnocentrically clueless deletionists. Wikipedia needs to have a parking zone for foreign names suggested for deletion to act as a buffer against destructive ignorance. Opbeith (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are familiar with the local language, feel free to dig up some references. Supertouch (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't pass WP:CRIN. The Millenium league is a local league in NJ and there are plenty of those. For cricketers, language isn't an issue with sourcing. Any recent cricketers that pass our notability criteria are typically included in Cricinfo or CricketArchive. —SpacemanSpiff 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I didn't say Madu Ragothaman played for Millennium League, I said Madhu Ragothaman did, to indicate that Anglophones should not assume too many things without considering alternatives, Horatio. In fact the article was expanded to show that the cricket player referred to is Madusudhanan Ragothaman, so the original title was an abbreviation. And Madusudhanan Ragothaman has now asked for the article to be removed. It's sometimes worth checking back to the article. Opbeith (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See this edit from a user who states, "I am Madu Ragothaman, I dont want information to be on the internet, please delete it." I am neutral to deletion. Cnilep (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, hasn't played any first-class, list-A or T20 matches. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:HARM. This article contained unsourced biographical information that should have been removed on sight.[15] I have deleted potentially libellous information. StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Denise James

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonnie Lyons

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and reviews. I think she now passes WP:AUTHOR. The fact that she's a full professor is a strong hint of notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She has around 50 GS cites for her literary criticism, I don't know how to judge the reputation of her poetry. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. She is a legitimate, respected literary critic and promising new poet. She has been published widely in literary magazines as well as 3 books of poetry. Can we take this notice down now?

"legitimate, "respected" and "promising" are not sufficient for wp:notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Eastmain's expansion. LotLE×talk 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though not a very strong keep), She is a Full professor at U Texas San Antonio, which is a research university, though not a major one. She teaches literature, not creative writing, and so inclusion under WP:PROF must be judged on that. (anyway, she is not notable as a poet: one of her two books is in 3 libraries, the other in 7). She has a dozen article on other American Jewish writera , but one one relevant book of scholarship, a biography of Henry Roth, ISBN 9780815405160 . It was published by a minor publisher only, is only 182 pages long, and is held in 278 WorldCat libraries , [16], a moderate number for a work on n important contemporary author. There is only one other English language book specifically about Roth (most are about Roth in comparison with other writers, because of the small amount of his published work), held in 600 libraries [17] . There is one third party GoogleNews reference to the book (and to her), an article in the San Antonio Express-News [18]. There are about 50 direct and indirect references to the book in G Scholar, the most relevant being "Bonnie Lyons, whose excellent Henry Roth: The Man and His Work is the only book-length study of the author, depicts David as undergoing three stages of initiation described by Mircea Eliade and as manifesting a renewal of the tradition of Jewish mysticism" in Modern Fiction Studies [19] ("only" because it was before the other book on Roth was written) . I suppose she therefore counts as an authority in her field on Roth. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the strength of that informed, intelligent research DGG's conclusion has my respect. Opbeith (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Claudio Mascarenhas

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

Notability. Claudio Mascarenhas hasn't made any impact in the classical music world and also is not notable as an actor. No sources (I googled it and didn't get much). All active musicians perform in concerts (with orchestras, in concert halls etc), but not all deserve an article: this Brazilian singer hasn't sung a principal role with a major opera company. He's won some scholarships but no a major music award. Karljoos (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not come close to WP:MUSICBIO. The groups he has performed with (Regina Opera, One World Symphony) are not notable ensembles. They generally have conservatory students as their soloists, or musicians who never made the big leagues (full disclosure: I played in both of these ensembles when I was a conservatory student in NYC). Wine Guy~Talk 09:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of Not Just Magic Episodes

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

Also main article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No independent reliable sources have been provided to help establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

RuMother

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

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

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another reason why WP:MADEUP should by a CSD category. Yes it exists, yes, someone has named it, but it's aint no Cuba Libre yet.The-Pope (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:N. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to see a new speedy criteria to cover things like this, but MADEUP doesn't work - everything was made up at some point. But agree, this one has no notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant say it better than The Pope did RadioFan (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Zengzhi Li

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ On the thoroughly non-policy grounds of being an article too short and dull to have any value. Whatever the virtues of a pack of wikilawyers dancing on the head of the WP:Notability pin, there's just no content in this article worth having. He exists, his chair is at a particular university. The phone book can tell us that much. It doesn't even tell us what his particular field is, his presumed doctoral thesis, or which piece of work made him so "distinguished". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep. Post expansion, I'd be happy to keep this. Thanks to those who put the effort in. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for getting so irritable about deletions! Opbeith (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I contested the deletion on procedural grounds, but I would have nominated for AfD myself if I had more time right now (I'm trying to clear away all the expired prods, I guess all the other admins who normally do that actually have lives on a Friday night; good for them). The article clearly doesn't meet our criteria. -- Atama頭 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete I've looked at it further. I at first thought there were many articles with a great many citations, which confirmed notability, & deprodded on that basis, as that would show his notability and , I assumed, distinguished status. I since checked further, and almost all of them are by people of another name. The name is a common one, and so I have had to distinguish by subject, which is not really accurate, And GS does not include publications in Chinese. Though I consider it correct that full professors at major research universities are almost always notable, and this is a major research university, I have just now found some further information about him, and he is an associate professor, not a full professor. The information is at the end of the pdf of his article, and reads in full "Yinliang Zhao was born in 1954. He is an associate professor in the Institute of Computer Architecture and Networks, Xi’an Jiaotong University. His research interests include optimization algorithm and parallel algorithm " It is sometimes helpful--for better or worse-- to actually read the reference. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't you looking at the wrong co-author? We're discussing Li here, not Zhao. See deletion rationale for a quotation of Li's bio from the end of the pdf. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oops, you are certainly right. The actual quote is "He is a professor and doctoral advisor in Institute of Computer Architecture and Networks. His research interests include Computer Architecture and Networks. so it remains possible he really is notable , but we'd need to get more information than that. If we do, the article can be rewritten using that information DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Saw the multiple prods, but saw they all had the same unprodder. Don't really think this procedurally needs to be here. One can (or should be able to) reverse one's own mistaken unprod; older versions of WP:PROD may have said this more clearly. The guideline should be clarified or changed.John Z (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you those were all honest errors. Abductive (reasoning) 01:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:PROD would be the place to bring up changes to the proposed deletion policy, however I know that there has been a discussion about this subject since last year and there is yet no consensus as to how to change it, or if it should be changed. I've always considered it okay for a prod tag to be re-added by the person who removed it if done in a short time, just as DGG did this most recent time at this article, and I've done so myself when I realized that my reason for objecting to a prod was faulty. -- Atama頭 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is an unusual and confused case, and there is no reason to try to adjust policy to deal with it. Most deproddings are straightforward enough, and if anyone objects to them AfD is the obvious course. If in doubt, there is no harm in getting a general community decision, even if not actually necessary. People make mistakes (I seem to have made several different ones here myself) DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a stub. Unless Wikipedia editors are determined to reinforce Wikipedia's existing ethnocentricity stubs should not be removed without evidence of adequate linguistic and other competence on which to base a legitimate judgment. Opbeith (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? We need evidence that this subject either meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. The article does neither. JBsupreme (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay some digging [20] indicates that he is considered a 'famous prof' This though is considered a primary source from his university and not indicative of any reasons as to why they are famous. The page also doesnt link to his profile either in englishh. I am certain this page will exist in chinese (which i cannot read unfortunaetly, and would be good if another reader could provide or find the translation for this, anyone with those skills here?). The article as of right now Fails WP:PROF, unless it can be established that he passes this, which right now is difficult to do. So at this point Im leaning towards deletion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ill add that the link i provided was selected by searching a header famous proffessors [21] but this could just be a translation error and just be the faculty depeartment listing of all profs. Nether the less I still think a profile page could be found which would indicate wether or not he satisfies WP:Prof.

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

If this is the correct journal; "International Journal of Information Technology" its imapct factor isnt that high [22] (my opinion only). Im not convinced that the paper is a huge contribution to science and that it even saitisfies WP:PROF. To me at least this would mean high citations, and high impact. Which this doesnt seem to meet. Again to me it goes back down to whats in the chinese sources and is he notable there. To me this means either we find the sources necessary to establish his notability or the article warrents deletion under WP:Prof. The discussion for this is now, not in some arbitary time from now. This is just my opinion of the source provided, Im sure people will have a different opinion than me on this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be an argument for deleting all stubs, ie doing away with the concept, and probably for not allowing any unfinished articles either.Opbeith (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not discussing deletion of all stubs. I am discussing my view on deletion of this article that hasnt been able to meet notability at this time in WP:PROF. My view would be the same if it were a fully developed sized article and still failed notability for academics. But that is not to say we cant try find the refs right now that show Li meets the criteria. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even with expansion I'm not seeing encyclopedic notability for this individual person. JBsupreme (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very difficult to decide with the sources. A PhD thesis does not help much. This person could be very notable but I could not say wihtout more sources. In doubt, I say keep. MiRroar (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from any notability issues there seems to be a general lack of independent reliable sources on which a neutral, verifiable article could be based. 80.47.228.124 (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Luc Floreani

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think it has potential, I'm going to add some cleanup tags to the article. It definitely needs to be wikified, and personally I believe the article wizard would have been more appropriate for creating the article. At first I considered CSD since it seems unremarkable, however upon further reading I'm giving it a weak keep. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 04:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: there're millions of musicians like him. He is not notable.--Karljoos (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The theme to Today Tonight might pass WP:MUSIC, but as nom said it's used in an advert which has no notability itself (unlike, say, the Girl Scouts singing True Colors for a Dove Superbowl ad which got mentioned in USA Today). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

MMA Tycoon

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criteria A7; web content with no indication of importance. Web search only shows a bit of forum chatter - topic is unverifiable through reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion was declined. Glenfarclas (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Just, um, a regular delete, then. Marasmusine (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this online game. Joe Chill (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already per above. I can't even find a blog review of this. Pcap ping 03:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Emerald Data Solutions

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising, and they can't even bring themselves to describe their products in adequate English: Emerald Data Solutions develops and markets BoardDocs Paperless Governance Solutions. "Top 100" lists do not make for a claim of minimal importance: Emerald Data Solutions was recognized on the Everything Channel 2009 CRN Fast Growth 100 List. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7, as there is neither any claim, nor any evidence to support a claim to notability in accordance with WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srilankan papare

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

Very vague and unsourced; almost qualifies for CSD A1 (no context). If notable enough to be recreated, it can be done by proper spacing. SS✞^(Kay) 00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, it is indeed vague, short and unsourced, but a Google search returned a few relevant links. Considering the current situation of the article, however, deletion is the best option here, unless someone more familiarized with the subject do some major editing there. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article is kept, the name will have to change. Which is better Sri Lankan papare, or simply Papare? There's already an article at the latter, which is a one-line stub about a New Guinean deity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename to Papara Music or Papara band. Salveable, There are some reliable sources.--Chanaka L (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. There are plenty of reliable sources found by this search. "Papara", "papare" and "papara papara" all seem to be potential names for the article, with a disambiguator if necessary. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. There do seem to be enough references on the web to support notability, so a little fleshing out and a citation or two should at least make it a stub article worth keeping -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Mapua Tekno Teatro

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Theater group of a company? No way that is notable, not to mention COI by creator User: Mapua orgs CTJF83 chat 05:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mapua is actually a college. Starczamora (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, still delete. CTJF83 chat 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. smithers - talk 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Graham Diamond

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral~~Weak delete~~. Sufficient evidence of fact of moderately wide publication, but none of award, wide reviews, etc., even in niche genre. LotLE×talk 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Science Fiction/Fantasy is not exactly a niche genre. Fact of fairly wide publication of several novels, article in need of addition not deletion. Amentet (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fairly wide publication" is not among the criteria that determine a notable author. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the guideline. I still find the creation of multiple novels to be more noteworthy criteria than the possession of breasts and appearance in one issue of Playboy magazine that the same guideline page references as being a criteria guideline for being noteworthy. Amentet (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions differ, but yours is a heterodox opinion with respect to WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough notability to be included. Having said that; the article needs extensive editing to address issues. --Stormbay (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is? According to which criteria? Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has had over a dozen books published and they sell well. Granted, Fantasy is not a classy genre but Diamond appears to have produced a body of work over a period of time that speaks to his notability. Stormbay (talk)

Did I disparage fantasy fiction? Apologies. What I meant to say was, I don't understand how even a large body of work satisfies WP:AUTHOR if no other author has commented on them. Am I misreading the guideline? Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep His most widely held book is his most recent , Forest wars, (1995), held in 136 WorldCat libraries. . I found 3 reviews: [23] [24] , and [25] (based on the information listed in GNews Archive.) I conclude from this that he was just sufficiently notable : I did get his birthdate from the LC authority file and added it to the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they are reviews of Diamond's books? SF/Fantasy isn't exactly a genre where authors don't receive any coverage, so I would have expected more if he really is/was notable.--Michig (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's extremely difficult to judge notability of sf as one goes further back. The intensity of coverage of sf in mainstream sources at present was not the case 20 years ago, and the specialized sources that were available were not in general collected much by libraries. Given copyright, it will be a very long time before the googles cover the period. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability in this case is on the weak side. I'm not comfortable retaining biographical articles on authors who lack significant coverage just because a couple of their books were reviewed. JBsupreme (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Mireille Allonville

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

Bit part actress with no real notability. Article appears to be sourced from a fansite noq (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. I just went through the article and deleted the irrelevant name-dropping and the quoting of her actual lines from her roles. What is left isn't much: a few non-speaking roles and bit parts (which the article had described as "starring in..."). --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would first like to thank Melanie for editing the page for me. I omitted to put on the relationship with 3-2-1, this has been corrected. Although Mireille was not a main stream actress, she has still made a contribution to the making of the productions and has acted with good actors and actresses in main stream films and shows. Especially the eight years she was on 3-2-1. For it's time the show was amazing attracting 12 million viewers a week. For these reasons I ask that you keep the Mireille Allonville page. Thank you. Harramed (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Harramed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot find any sources to back up 8 years on 3-2-1. IMDB only lists a single episode. Even if she did appear regularly, it was as a minor bit part and not in itself notable. noq (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDB lists Mireille Allonville from 29 July 1978 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0502492/ - Cruise Ship to 21 December 1986 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1131037/ - Special: Christmas at Toad. When Mireille was in Hi Summer she was in a group called The Blondes, there was a group callled the 'Fellas', in that was a Christopher Quinten, he hasn't done much (bar Cornation Street) but is listed as notable Harramed (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Harramed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment You have already said keep once, no need to repeat it. Her imdb entry says one appearance - your show reference does not mention how often she appeared. IMDB is not considered a reliable source anyway but there is a distinct lack of those available. As for Christopher Quinton, he played a major character with multiple story lines and is well documented. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. noq (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I looked into Mirielle Allonville's "3-2-1" credits for another website, and found that she was a regular on the first two series, but did not (as far as I can tell) appear after that. - Q4 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment I have been in communication with Jenny Turner at UKgameshows.com and we have established that Mireille Was in the first two series of 3-2-1, as you say "IMDB is not considered a reliable source". I have changed the details accordingly. Many thanks Graham Harramed (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources. Dlabtot (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't understand this deletion process. When I was looking for information about Mireille being in Hi Summer, one of the other cast members was Anna Dawson. I looked at her Wiki site and at the top it reads: "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (March 2009)". There is more information on the Mireille site. I therefore ask again that this site remain. Many thanks Harramed (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping an article. Wikipedia does contain a large number of unsourced or poorly sourced articles and various initiatives are under way to reduce that number. What was contentious in that article that had not been removed? noq (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Polynomially reflexive space

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

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

Keep. This article has an internal consistency that suggests that it was written by someone who knew what they were talking about. The continued presence of defects in an article should not be considered grounds for arbitrary deletion when the subject area is not one of common expertise, particularly if proposers advance no evidence of their own competence to form a judgment.Opbeith (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it's correct or not or whether the author knows the subject isn't in question. Wikipedia is not a repository for current research. I included the note about the error not as a reason for deletion in itself, but as evidence that there is no one taking enough notice of it to ensure that it's accurate, which is exactly the danger the danger with non-notable subjects.--RDBury (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this is current research. This is a descriptive article which refers to another article which provides an example of what is described. The article says quite specifically that polynomially reflexive spaces are rare but it quotes an example of a polynomially reflexive space, a symmetric tsirelson space. At the Tsirelson space article the symmetric Tsirelson space is referred to as being polynomially reflexive. If the Tsirelson space article is OK then this article has to be OK. Deleting the explanation of something that another article refers to even if there is no link seems unwarranted. Lupin did not in fact refer to an error, just to an apparent lack of clarity. Surely it is dangerous to assume that where a subject is in a recondite area it should be deleted if there is no evidence of routine supervision. Similarly using the number of journal articles to judge the notability of something that is in itself rare in a field that is not overpopulated seems a very unreliable tool. Lupin did not in fact refer to an error, simply requested clarification. You and I are not competent to judge the adequacy of the article and a lack of frequent visits seems a dangerous basis to remove information whose relevance elsewhere we are unaware of. Have earlier, apparently informed editors, who may still be around been asked for their comments - Charles Matthews and Michael Hardy, or some of the editors who contributed to the Tsirelson space article? This seems a wiser procedure for checking the appropriateness of deletion. Opbeith (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I shouldn't be assuming your non-competence alongside mine, however you do seem to be relying on a priori arguments. Opbeith (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion/inclusion criteria are set up so that a great deal of expertise is not needed. For math articles what is required is a non-trivial mention in a reliable secondary source, usually a textbook. I made a good faith effort to find such a source and none was given in the article so I have to conclude that the subject does not meet notability criteria. If you feel the subject is notable then show how it satisfies the criteria given in WP:Notability. Again, I'm not claiming Lupin's note in the talk page (and yes, it was an error - Lupin was being polite) as a primary reason for deleting the article since I would hope that lack of evidence for notability would be sufficient. The reason I included it is that it shows the subject is apparently so abstruse that no one has fixed an obvious factual error in 5 years. My understanding is that that's part of the reason the notability criteria exist and are set where they are; Wikipedia should not have articles that are so technical that only a few researchers are competent to verify them since there is too much current research going on and too few Wikipedians who would be able to ensure the material is accurate. However, you right in that including it is a form of WP:NOEFFORT so I withdraw it as a possible reason for deletion, lack of evidence of notability still being sufficient reason. On the other hand, most of your arguments seem to be variations of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:EFFORT which are not arguing to the basic issue of whether the article meets notability criteria.--RDBury (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably being polite and patient with me, as you you're numerate enough to be able to confirm the error. Nevertheless I think there is still an issue, in that this article aims to provide the explanation of another term which, however rare, is important in the context of part of another article whose notability I assume is not challenged. Deleting the Polynomially reflexive space article basically marks the side road from Tsirelson space as non-existent because it's dangerous. I would have thought there are two other more constructive options. One is to repair the road, which may require an expert road-mender. The other is simply to flag the road as being dangerous and advise anyone that they take it at their own risk - either as a tag or in a form of words included in the text. The road links the Tsirelson space article to somewhere a user of that article might want to check out via the closest route first before embarking on a more complicated journey (via mathematical dictionaries, textbooks, search engines) to find the place. The rules provide guidelines, they shouldn't obstruct the pursuit of knowledge. Incidentally - I'm afraid the intricacies of "notability" lose me - does the removal of this term imply that the reference to polynomially reflexive spaces should be edited out of the Tsirelson space article? And should any other references to polynomially reflexive spaces, linked or unlinked, be identified and examined as part of the deletion process? Is there no recommendation for an overview to ensure that decisive action isn't taken on a piecemeal basis? Opbeith (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference, hope that helps. In my opinion however the article is not very clear: it is not properly explained what it means for a polynomial to be "reflexive on a Banach space". 131.211.113.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I have taken the step of asking Tsirelson, which is of course at the opposite extreme from looking at policies that are claimed to be valid for every topic under the sun. It nonetheless seems reasonable to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That seems an appropriate way of pursuing the issue in a constructive spirit. Opbeith (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, primarily as failing WP:N. As noted above, the main definition is ambiguously stated, and it is rather unclear what the subject of the article actually is (the correct definition probably involves requiring that for every N the space of complex-valued N-homogeneous polynomials from X to C be reflexive, or something similar, I am not sure). I checked MathSciNet, and the paper of Farber, given as the main reference, is cited only 8 times there since its publication in 1994. Given that the notion in question is highly technical and highly specialized, even for the experts, that does not seem sufficient to pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Neutral for now. The source[26] pointed out by Sławomir Biały actually makes it clear that the notion predates the work of Farber, and gives references to the work of others who studied this notion. Nsk92 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do get quite a few scholar hits for "polynomial reflexivity", most of which are relevant for the subject of the article: [27]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for deletion often don't check alternative formulations, even obvious ones - eg the proposal to delete Richard C. Longworth - allegedly a "non-notable scribe" - never seemed to have looked for "Richard Longworth". The problem is compounded with non-Anglo formulations. That's particularly dangerous where specialised, and so possibly infrequently consulted, articles are concerned, when not many people are going to be aware of the impending prospect of removal. Google and even other more specialised search engines will only produce the results you ask them to. The encyclopaedic spirit should also require insistence on a bit of lateral thinking to be a necessary component of any culling procedure. Opbeith (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the person creating the article to give references for it that show the subject is notable. If someone had to jump through all the hoops your suggesting, checking all permutations of the name in multiple languages, before doing an AfD then nothing would ever be deleted and Wikipedia would fill up with spam and nonsense. Yes it is better to find a reference if possible and I think I made a reasonable, good faith effort to find one that meets notability criteria. If you have a reliable secondary source with a nontrivial mention of the subject then add it to the article and I'll gladly withdraw the AfD. In other words, if the AfD is unfair then say it's unfair and prove it's unfair, but don't use this backhanded "Gee, there are so many articles that are unfairly put up for deletion," argument.--RDBury (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced is not a criterion for deletion, and part of the purpose of having an AfD in the first place it to attempt to turn up additional references. And as a matter of overall procedural conduct, I am reluctant to point out that perhaps WP:BEFORE was not observed very judiciously in this case. At any rate, that particular point is now moot, as the article is now sports a reference. So, there is only the question of notability to settle. The Google scholar search turns up 11 relevant sources, 6 of which are in top journals. Many of the 8 cross-references listed on MathSciNet seem to be directly relevant to the topic of the article, and some of them are in good journals. While there is no concrete numerical criterion for notability, I should think that this one passes. Therefore I am leaning towards keep. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be using different criteria for notability. WP:SECONDARY gives a link to the Ithaca College Library to explain the difference between research articles and survey articles. Research articles are considered primary research and therefore not evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines the term, even if they do appear in top journals. Survey articles are allowed but I didn't see any in the Google link you gave, nor did I find any in my own search. Please don't assume that I did not perform a good faith search for sources simply because your interpretation of notability guidelines differs from mine. WP:BEFORE states "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist," which I did. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there are no such sources or that I spend more time looking for them than it took to create the article in the first place. WP:YFA states "Gather references both to use as source(s) of your information and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter," which is why I claim that the onus of proving notability falls on the person who created it, not on the person attempting to delete it.--RDBury (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you are asking for a bit much here. The basic principle of WP:N and all other notability guidelines is that sources cited be independent from the subject (rather than necessarily be secondary in the technical sense of WP:SECONDARY). As WP:N puts it: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Thus for a mathematical theorem proved by a particular author, I would consider research papers by other mathematicians that significantly use or generalize that theorem to be valid examples of independent coverage, even if no survey papers are available. Similarly, if someone introduces a particular mathematical notion, and other researchers start actively using and studying this notion in their papers, I would consider that to be perfectly good examples of independent coverage, even if nobody has bothered to write a survey article about it yet. I think that for notability purposes the real question is the extent and depth of independent coverage available. My impression was that in this case the amount and depth of such coverage (by people other than Farber) was not sufficiently significant, but if evidence is presented to the contrary, I am quite prepared to change my mind. Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but disagree with the subjective assessment that "the amount and depth of such coverage (by people other than Farber [sic]) was not sufficiently significant". It might be better to generalize the subject of the article to some degree, even as much as "polynomial properties of Banach spaces". The literature review here clearly indicates that polynomial reflexivity (and things very closely connected to it) have been studied by quite a few researchers independent of the subject, some of them (like Sean Dineen) being quite distinguished in the field. So I'm just not seeing the same lack of amount and depth, based on my own cursory gestalt of the available sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my comments above. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Why choose between keep and delete? The topic is probably too narrow and special for an article, but appropriate for a section in another article (near the end, since technical). Specifically, I propose to merge it into polynomials on vector spaces, for now a purely algebraic article. The (good) Vector space article contains analytic sections; also "Polynomials on vector spaces" could contain. I've expanded the article a bit, so that its relation to polynomials is more clear now. And of course, a redirect page should be made here. Alternatively, it could be merged into Reflexive space or even Banach space. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could there be scope for a new article, something like "Polynomial properties of Banach spaces", that includes reflexivity? Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then maybe "Polynomials and analytic functions on Banach spaces", or even "Functions on infinite-dimensional spaces"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm very happy to withdraw my own Keep above in favour of whatever the people competent to judge decide between them now that the matter has received thorough consideration, for which Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Python Paste

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Paster (aka Paste Script) is part of Paste, and it's covered [28] to a significant extent this book on Plone, and similarly so in this [29] book on Pylons, because it's part of the common plumbing used by both frameworks. Pcap ping 07:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references found by Pcap. It certainly does need to be cleaned up, though. TJRC (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap and TJRC. LotLE×talk 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to meet the minimum standardss for notability, but it should probably be spruced up with the references.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Bourgeois v. Peters

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

Procedural nomination. Proposed for deletion after previously being contested.

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's funny. Why in the world would they quote Wikipedia for that? Anyway ... will be interested in the supporter(s) explaining why "one of the first" should qualify -- perhaps the first, or the first by U.S. Circuit Court or higher (if the S Ct ever does), but otherwise that seems overbroad/loose to hang one's hat on for notability. Perhaps better placed in an article on Wikipedia being quoted by courts...at least that is my initial take.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case has been discussed in at least ~~four~~ two journal articles, see [30], exactly for the basis of notability asserted in the article: "primarily notable for being one of the earliest court opinions to cite and quote Wikipedia." TJRC (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amending my comment above; one hit ([31]) is a master's paper, and one is a duplicate. But two (Wikipedia in Court: When and How Citing Wikipedia and Other Consensus Websites is Appropriate, The Citation of Wikipedia in Judicial Opinions) are published articles on exactly this topic. TJRC (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We shouldn't avoid articles on ourselves. But possibly it could be merged with other similar opinion as they accumulate. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into Wikipedia's history or reliability article. Not enough notable instances for a seperate article on court citations (though one on citations in general could be explored).--Ipatrol (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent any sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia in law (which is what TJRC's sources are really about) and expand. This case doesn't merit a standalone article, though the concept might. In the alternative, delete. THF (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, maybe WP:Wikipedia in judicial opinions and maybe WP:Wikipedia as a court source ought to be moved to article space, with the various case names (if not notable for other reasons and having their own articles) redirecting there. TJRC (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

2004 Hito Top 100 Singles

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

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

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

Previous reason for contesting deletion was "Fix not destroy"

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SOFIXIT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.188.242.125 (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—This list doesn't bother to explain what it is about. But, based upon the introduction to a similar list 2005 Hito Top 100 Singles, it appears to be the product of a radio station, Hit Fm Taiwan. The importance of the list is unclear.—RJH (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources. If this is some radio station's list of top 100 songs, it's hardly notable and there is nothing to indicate any kind of significance. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists by individual radio stations aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Viggo Kristiansen

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a fucking dodgy conviction if the information contained here is true. But I digress; Coffee is right in that there is nothing here that can't be tied back to the case, and there is an article on that where all this can reasonably go. A clear example of BLP1E if ever I saw one. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect. The Baneheia case is one of the most notorious crimes to take place in Norway, and Viggo Kristiansen was convicted as the most culpable of the two perpetrators (hence, Kristiansen received a 21 year containment sentence, while the co-defendant received 19 years in prison). I think that if the article is brought up to the standard on the Norwegian Wikipedia [32] the article may be kept, because there are some more details on his activity in prison. At the very least, someone wanting searching for "Viggo Kristiansen" is most likely looking for information on the Baneheia case so merging and redirecting is OK too. --Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to/with the Baneheia case. I have never heard of him before, but he sounds as notable as Ian Huntley, which was also merged to the equivalent case. Martin451 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect. Sjakkalle has set out the arguments clearly. Opbeith (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect or delete. I'm fine with having his name redirect to Baneheia case, and if there's relevant info we can merge it there. But this is a clear cut WP:BLP1E and keeping a standalone article is not really an option. Given the above comments simply turning this into a redirect is clearly the way to go in terms of consensus, and it matters not to me whether we just do that and do a merge or delete the history and then turn this into a redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As said above, WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E completly applies here. If User:BirgerOJ and User:Coffee agree, I would suggest a SK merge, which I encourage these two users to agree to as it seems to be the most amicable outcome.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Baneheia case. This person does not seem to fit the criteria of WP:PERP for a stand alone article. Wine Guy~Talk 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Earl Owens

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I located the results from the 1995 World Championships and have placed a reference to it. He DID compete at the highest level of his division of the sport and PLACED twice, therefore he does pass WP:ATHLETE.Trackinfo (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected this reference. He performed in the World Veterans Championship, not the World Athletics Championship in Gothenburg. Tassedethe (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please let me know if I am violating protocol by adding this comment; I have tried to find a more appropriate place to engage in a general discussion about the definition of "notability" in athletic performances, without success. It seems to me that the significance of great age-group performances has been dismissed without justification. If you are running beer ads, you might argue that no one cares what some old folks do; but if you wish to acknowledge excellence, your criteria need some examination. If a 70-year-old ran a sub-4-minute mile to win the World Masters Athletics championships, would this be unworthy of note simply because he wouldn't have placed in the Olympics? Apparently this is what the current definition of "notable athlete" is saying. Who decides this? And if this is the wrong place to raise the question, where would be better? JHBrewer (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more appropriate place would be the talk page for WP:ATHLETE, or perhaps on the Village Pump WP:VP. When addressing notability of athletes performing at the Olympics or World Championships is usually enough for the person to be declared notable even if there are no other reliable sources that discuss the person in detail. This historically has been to ensure that athletes who performed before the Internet was prevalent, or who come from non-Western countries, get a fair deal (i.e reliable sources about them are likely to be offline, or difficult to obtain). By definition Masters athletes (i.e. performing in age limited categories) are not at the "the highest amateur level of a sport", and by current standard aren't regarded as automatically notable. If there are reliable sources that discuss them (per the WP:GNG guidelines) then, of course, they are (as a sub4min 70yo would probably be). Tassedethe (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - He has a world record and there is an Earl Owens who was in the NY Times quite a bit for running but I can't be sure if it's the same person. Doesn't meet the criteria put forth in WP:ATHLETE but it does seem like he's notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The athlete is a record holder at the veteran or senior level of the sport. This is not the "highest level" as required by WP:ATHLETE. To meet that criteria, he would have to compete at the Olympic Games or World Championships (not the Veterans World Champions). Accordingly, does not meet the notability criteria required of an athlete. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not casually cast off the World Veterans Championships (now called World Masters Athletics). It took an Olympian Rod Dixon New Zealand to beat him in that competition and Owens beat Ingo Sensburg Germany a three time winner of the Berlin Marathon in that World Championships.Trackinfo (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per JHBrewer's argument and Trackinfo's information. "Following the rules is less important than using good judgment" [[33]] Opbeith (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The notion that a world record in the Masters category doesn't represent performance at the highest level smacks of discrimination on grounds other than performance in competition with one's peers. Performance level is judged differently between men and women. Should women's achievements be ruled non-notable on the grounds that the events are sex-restricted?

Like other marathons and half-marathons, the Parkersburg Half Marathon(on various occasions functioning as the US men's and women's national half marathon championship) has categories for Men, Women, Men Masters, Women Masters, Men Wheelchair and Women Wheelchair. In 1989 Earl Owens won the Men Masters section in a record time that was seven and a half minutes behind the time of the Men's winner, Steve Kogo of Kenya, but two and a half minutes faster than the Women's winner, Diane Brewer.http://newsandsentinelhalfmarathon.com/page/content.detail/id/500030/Early-history-of-the-race.html?nav=5027 (it is only the principle of masters category-restricted racing being conducted at a similar high level to mens and womens category-restricted racing that I'm referring to here, Earl Owens' notability claim relates to his world records) Opbeith (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Richard C. Longworth

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Numerous references under "Richard Longworth" eg [34]. Why do deletionists waste other people's time and effort instead of doing a bit of basic research and contributing to the net value of knowledge in Wikipedia? Opbeith (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded some of the information about Longworth's purportedly "non-notable" activities (notability obvious from a slight glance at the references). If anyone has the energy and inclination they could disambiguate this Richard Longworth from the other Richard W. Longworth whose article bears the Richard Longworth title. That would be a rather more effective use of time than proposing unread articles for deletion. Opbeith (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change of opinion - might as well delete. He seems to reckon that his biographical material is copyright, even information that he circulates for use at other sites. Opbeith (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

James W. Maney

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

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

Keep Take another look; a lot turned up about him on Google. So I have added detail and references to the article. Turns out he really was fairly notable. He invented a well known earth-moving tool, and his house is the centerpiece of a National Register of Historic Places historic district named for him. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later: added more information, more references, and an infobox. --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MelanieN has done the preliminary basic research Orangemike couldn't manage before making the proposal for deletion. Perfectly reasonable article to keep - the Maney Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and named for him. The original model of the earth-moving tool he invented is in the Smithsonian Institution. Etc. Why not do a bit of adequate basic research before proposing and contribute to the net value of knowledge in Wikipedia rather than deducting from it and diverting other people's time and energy (though thanks to MelanieN for producing an interesting and informative article as a result) Opbeith (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I like to rescue an occasional article, when it seems like a worthy subject but inadequately covered or badly written. (See Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron.) But don't blame OrangeMike; you should have seen this article a week ago, it was in poor shape! A companion article about Maney's wife, written at the same time by the same person, was deleted and deservedly so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I get annoyed by unnecessary deletions and I'd just come straight from his nomination of R. Longworth which could very easily have been sorted out without the need for all the work you put in here. It's so much more effective simply to improve an article, instead of throwing away someone else's hard work, clumsy as it may be (and it isn't always), and using up the energy of other people diverted from efforts elsewhere. I should keep away from here as my cage gets rattled too much, but sometimes you get directed to really interesting subjects. Opbeith (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of his influence on his city, and on the railroad work also--either would be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MelanieN's work makes this one easy. Notability has clearly been established. Wine Guy~Talk 02:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Allegiance: The Musical

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

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

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

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

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

If you are User:Nycbwayguy, you can move the article to User:Nycbwayguy/Allegiance: The Musical, or request that it be userfied to there. The article can stay there for a while as you wait for further developments regarding the show being produced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musical. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and wait for developments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of Grand Masters of Taekwondo

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. – Janggeom (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is not a "loose" association at all: it's a fairly precise and relevant one. Compare with, say, List of chess grandmasters. Reyk _YO! 23:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- however, it probably needs to renamed to reflect the fact that only 9th Dan practitioners are listed. The term Grand Master apparently refers to 6th - 9th Dan, which would include thousands and thousands of people. Reyk _YO! 00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand your reasoning, but the list of Chess grandmasters is not a good comparison. The criterion for inclusion in that list is very specific and easily verified: award of the "Grandmaster" title by FIDE. In the domain of Tae Kwon-Do (or Taekwon-Do or Taekwondo), there are many organisations that award Dan rankings, and standards vary between them. Indeed, not every organisation even has 9th Dan as the highest rank, as the article notes. There are also political influences at work; take, for example, Choi Hong Hi—proclaimed as the Founder of Taekwon-Do and ranked 9th Dan by some of the major groups (ITF), and not even mentioned by, or holding any rank in, other major groups (WTF). "Grandmaster of Tae Kwon-Do" or "9th Dan in Tae Kwon-Do" only makes sense in the context of a specific organisation or set of standards—which do not exist for Tae Kwon-Do as a whole in the same way that they might do for Chess. I hope these comments give some background on the reasons for nominating the article for deletion. Janggeom (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- surely this is a matter for cleanup and clarification rather than deletion. Perhaps the list could be modified to include several lists to account for people who have been awarded by Grand Master status by the important federations. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would the content then not be better placed in the articles on those organisations? Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On further thought, I suppose the article could be cleaned up rather than be deleted, but it would certainly need to be renamed (e.g., "List of Kukkiwon grandmasters of taekwondo"). In this case, some content would need to be moved elsewhere. Janggeom (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on Kukkiwon since this article deals only with martial artists at a certain level recoginized by this specific organization. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Non-Kukkiwon Dan holders are listed in the article (H. H. Choi and others), and were from the beginning (H. U. Lee, C. E. Sereff). The text on Kukkiwon and South Korean government recognition was added later. Janggeom (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the correction. I don't do tae kwon do and that's not how I read the article. If it's supposed to cover all TKD organizations the list is likely inadequate (and probably impossible to keep accurate and up-to-date). In that case I would change my vote to Delete. If the authors just want to focus on the Kukkiwon, then I'll stick with my merge vote. Either way I don't think it should be a stand-alone article. I think any list of grandmasters should be in the article of the certifying organization (or omitted altogether). There's too much variability in the standards of martial arts organizations to compare things indiscriminately. For example, a 5th dan in one style may well not confer the same amount of expertise as a 5th dan in another style. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following one of Reyk's comments above, I suppose the article could be renamed and trimmed down to focus on Kukkiwon grandmasters. The article would then be of similar scope, in principle, to the list of Chess grandmasters (FIDE). I believe the article under discussion was originally meant to cover all of Tae Kwon-Do, and the article title certainly implies that. Janggeom (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list based on objective criteria. It appears to be limited to ITF and WTF, mostly WTF, although that is not expressly set out. That criterion should be made express in the article. TJRC (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to list of level 8 and 9 dan taekwondo masters 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Categorize/Merge As a matter of taste, I prefer to mark the people who notable enough to have an article with a category. Those without an article could be merged as a section into ITF, WTF, Kukkiwon or whatever entity granted them rank. jmcw (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Categorize/Merge Per Jmcw37. Merging to the org they are a grandmaster of sounds like a good plan and categorise the articles of individuals where they exist , as it stands it will attract people to add self-certified grandmasters with no sources and become useless. --Nate ^t/_c 08:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Danny Mountain

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

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

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AVN shows that he was nominated for 2010 Best Threeway Sex Scene for The A.J. Bailey Experiment. Ash (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment – Unless he "has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years", he still fails WP:PORNBIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I was confirming the fact of the award nomination. I think WP:PORNBIO is a better shortcut if you want to highlight the relevant criteria. Ash (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO. He may become notable later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Kindly, please undelete the article so it could be further enriched with more information.

The professor had recently died and many of his students and patients are looking for information about him.

Thank you. Graven2k (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lael Anson Best

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

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

Delete After some searching, As per above...DarkNightWolf (T|C) 19:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know Prof. Dr.Lael Anson Best , who is an alumnus of my school, though junior, but with considerable achievements and is the 'representative and ambassador' in Israel for our school, the Rajkumar College, Rajkot and listed as such as a notable alumnus. Patelurology2 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^ekrubrR 19:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to External links for sources.. further soureces evaluation will be done Patelurology2 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viewed all of above. Will work to help find additional sources and convert ext links to ref as done by me and other editors. Patelurology2 (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h index = 6. Highly competent professional but not yet WP Notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

NanoNAS

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

This article starts off by incorrectly asserting that it's the successor of the GPL'd NASLite 1.x. That is actually incorrect. NASLite-2 is the actual successor. See company's own product pages [35] [36]. I can find no significant independent coverage for this sofware. (Beware that this article is about a piece of hardware, and therm is used generically in the title) Pcap ping 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can find one detailed independent review at: [37]. There are also a variety of more informal discussions, such as [38]; [39]. I think I lean towards weak delete unless someone finds other sources. LotLE×talk 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's something else: a hardware product by another company, see caveat in my nomination. Pcap ping 20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 3rd week and no keep !votes. Treat as uncontested PROD. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The Sugarman 3

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

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

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

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

Keep all. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music, bands, albums and songs are pretty clear on this issue, informing that this article should not be deleted. The notability guidelines state that a band is notable if it meets at least one of their criteria, and this band meets at least 3 of them. For example:

This band released 4 albums through an independent label, Daptone Records. This label also released albums for bands such as Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings, whose band is also featured in Amy Winehouse's Back to Black album.
The Sugarman 3 band is formed by studio musicians such as Neal Sugarman, Adam Scone and Rudy Albin, among others. These session musicians have played for acts such as Robbie Williams, Amy Winehouse, Lilly Allen, along with other acts such as Ghostface Killah, Mark Ronson among others. So criteria #6 is also met.
This band is a prominent, if not the leading band, of the retro-funk movement. So criteria #7 is met.

So, without delving any deeper than this, it becomes pretty clear that this article should not be deleted. There is a lot of crap floating around wikipedia which rightfully need to be deleted. Yet, this isn't it. -- Mecanismo | Talk 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Releasing X number of albums does not equal notability. The session musicians that make up this band are not notable, except maybe one of them (and his article is up for AfD right now), and at least two are required to be notable for the group to be notable. And their prominence is your opinion only, and you have stubbornly refused to provide further references from independent, reliable sources to back this up. So the three criteria you mention are not met, nor apparently are any others. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Never mind; see comments below. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With several major mentions by the New York Times and many other mentions by other news sources, plus some book mentions, it is clear that this band is well known in its genre amd there is probably enough material out there to construct a decent article. Keep unequivocally.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 February 2010

Comment: I came up with the same NY Times items. Both are mere listings of performances in NYC, and listings of performances do not equate to independent coverage, such as an article specifically about the subject. (I looked for one of those, too, since the original author is apparently unwilling to do so, and came up empty on several attempts. Hey, I tried!) The Stanford Daily link came up dead, but I did a search and came up with the cache (no big deal, Google acts up like that sometimes). This is the closest that we've come to independent coverage, but with this and the brief Allmusic piece, I just don't think that is enough. For a group that is supposed to have had such an influence on their genre of music, there are precious few mentions. (By the way, the AllMusic book item is simply a duplicate of the item on the web site, or vice versa, so count that out.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band's article. I have expanded it with sources. Note that I'm not suggesting every reference contains significant coverage. However, enough of them do such that WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:BAND are satisfied. Gongshow ^Talk 01:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If we had these references to start with, or even after I asked the original author to provide them, I would have never pursued this in the first place. Not all the new references are applicable, but enough of them are to do the job. (BTW, how did you find these when I moved heaven and Google to fine something? Check that: I figured it out - most of the new refs are for Sugarman "Three," not "3" - D'oh!) I can't withdraw the AfD since technically I did not post it, but since I'm the main instigator, I'll ask the closing admin to do so. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right, spelling out "three" was helpful for a few of the refs. Also, for obscure bands--comparatively speaking--I'll usually try several searches with a publisher's name included to see if I get lucky (e.g., "sugarman three" popmatters). Gongshow ^Talk 01:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll file that away in the old bag o' tricks for future use. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - just to add to the consensus. Gongshow has improved the artist's article very well with the sources found by everyone during this debate. Then per precedent at WP:ALBUMS if the artist is notable then that helps the album articles. This is the type of outcome that I personally like to see in an AfD discussion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have been working on the album articles (will add cover images soon) and found that the band is known as BOTH "The Sugarman 3" and "The Sugarman Three", with both spellings appearing on their album covers. (Also, sometimes there is no "The".) Should this be mentioned in the band article? I can't figure out which is more common; if "Sugarman Three" is more common that might necessitate a Move but who knows. Is there a funk doctor in the house who can help with the true spelling of the band's name? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the band being referred to with either "3" or "Three" in the name. Even the website for the band's label uses both variations. I added a bit to the lead so both spellings are mentioned. I probably favor the "3" variation only because that's the spelling used for the band's most recent album, as well as their MySpace page, for what it's worth. Gongshow ^Talk 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Blackman

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

The article is about a Lib Dem PPC in the upcoming general election, and by the looks of things is no more notable than any other PPC who may be standing. The article also seems to be biased towards the LibDems. I propose that the article be deleted and only recreated if Mr. Blackman gains any further notability. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The focus of the article appears to be on his LibDem PPC status. He is nevertheless a leading UK human rights lawyer and as the article states, tucked away at the bottom, Chairman of Solicitors International Human Rights Group. His "leading UK human rights lawyer" status is endorsed by Doughty Street Chambers who should be considered a reasonable authority on the subject [40] Opbeith (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that "by the looks of things is no more notable than" is a poor basis for proposing deletions. If the proposer is unable to do the very little research that reveals something more significant they might consider their time would be better spent on contructive rather than destructive effort. There's absolutely nothing to stop the proposer from revising the article to focus its content on the more notable aspects of the subject's career. Opbeith (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that at his User page the proposer describes himself as living in Surrey and a supporter of the Conservative Party. Heigh-ho. Opbeith (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the article myself. It was probably pointless suggesting that a local Tory might consider doing it (to be clear I'm not a LibDem and I don't live anywhere near the constituency and nor do I have any connection with Lionel Blackman). Opbeith (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency). Blackman seems far less notable than is being suggested above. A search of Google News archives shows that almost all of the references to "Lionel Blackman" are about a Florida psychiatrist. Most of the few stories I come up with about the British solicitor are passing references to him as the lawyer defending a former soldier in a case that became a minor cause celebre [41] [42] [43]. The sources provided in the article right now are little more than press releases, and overall I'm just not seeing "significant coverage" of Blackman. Per a recent consensus we've revised the guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN to say "in the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." I don't think Blackman has attained sufficient notability for an article, and since he is only a candidate a redirect to Esher and Walton (UK Parliament constituency) (or to a specific article on that local election if we ever get it) seems the appropriate choice right now. As a side note, and not to be all crystal ballish, given the recent voting trends in this constituency it seems almost impossible that Blackman will win this election. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. Opbeith (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I'm being quite serious, and there's nothing fatuous in my comment above as you suggest in your edit summary. You're welcome to disagree with my rationale, of course, but there's no reason to belittle it, particularly since it's clearly a strong argument per our existing guidelines. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that was my immediate response, I was in the middle of keying some more as you replied. What have Florida psychiatrists and the gun case to do with the substance of his HR work with SIHRG and Justice for Colombia campaign? That's more significant than the so-far non-event of him being a PPC. The range of Google references is in itself meaningless, it's the relevant content that's significant. I give up.Opbeith (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that was my reply I was describing as pointless, not your. Opbeith (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are getting so frustrated here, it's pretty normal for people to disagree at AfD. Clearly I mentioned the Florida psychiatrist because it shows that while a lot of Gnews hits come up for "Lionel Blackman," 95% of them are not the person we are talking about. What I did find (cited above) are only brief mentions of him relating to one particular case. These are exactly the kind of points we routinely bring up in AfDs, there's nothing odd about it. I understand he has done some human rights work, but that does not automatically make him notable (he's mentioned as one of a number of lawyers who were involved with Columbia, and there are literally tens of thousands of lawyers who have received brief mentions online in similar situations). The general guideline is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (i.e. the "range of Google references" can actually be quite important). Do you see "significant coverage" anywhere? Without that Blackman is not notable enough for an article, and we should redirect per WP:POLITICIAN. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get frustrated by the environment of unwillingness to allow information to be available and in its most usable form. I understand the purpose of Wikipedia rules as supporting a non-exploitative and adequately verifiable structure of information provision. But the fact that the Florida psychiatrist either warrants his own article or is a smart self-publicist is irrelevant. Unless I'm local, it's Blackman's international human rights activities that are the more likely reason I'm going to be interested in finding out about him, and specifically as Chair of SIHRG. If I'm interested in UK lawyers' involvement in human rights work in Pakistan or Colombia or Philippines or Bangladesh or Mexico or Zimbabwe the history of the Esher and Walton constituency or the candidates for an election which hasn't even been called yet are actually going to get in my way in finding out what I want to know.

SIHRG was set up by Geoffrey Bindman and Michael Ellman (previous Chair when LB was Vice-Chair), it has Bindman, Clive Stafford Smith and Phil Shiner as patrons, who I presume as patrons might be considered as more than mere agents of notability contagion. SIHRG works closely with Amnesty International, Justice for Colombia (which is the NGO set up to deal with its Colombia concerns by the British Trades Union Congress), Commonwealth Lawyers Association, Public Interest Lawyers, Garden Court Chambers, etc. Look at the SIHRG activities in the Bulletins downloadable at http://sites.google.com/a/sihrg.org/solicitors-international-human-rights-group/october-2008-bulletin. - they have speakers at meetings from the top of the humanitarian law profession including Shami Chakrabarti, Richard Gifford, Prof. Bill Bowring, Gugulethu Moyo, Geraldine van Buren, evidence of professional respect rather than contagion.

Does notability boil down to Google hits? If so, so be it, that's the way it is, but it's frustrating. Blackman is hardly notable as an untested PPC so if his HR activities are irrelevant then might as well go for Delete rather than Esher and Walton. (Incidentally with the previous LibDem candidate getting 30 per cent of the vote last time and the current political climate it's hardly "impossible" that he may get elected, but that's another matter). Opbeith (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your points above suggest to me that what we need is an article on Solicitors International Human Rights Group, and if anything Blackman should be discussed/redirected to there. If the group is notable as you say, it makes more sense to have an article about it rather than the person who happens to be the chairman at the moment and who is otherwise not especially notable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if a groups (excuse the absence of apostrophes, Wikipedia is going to and fro between allowing me to use them and doing odd things when I try) notable - and Im not pre-empting that issue - then the person responsible for it conducting its notable activities is only notable if he or she gets enough publicity for doing so? This seems to be imposing a rather skewed notion of notability, that might be better expressed as "noticeability". I dont see any reason for not doing an article on SIHRG but Im certainly not going to start one and have someone jumping on me to delete it because I havent got it perfect. Opbeith (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is basically yes, though it might depend somewhat on the group. Our general notability guideline is here, and that's the overarching rule for just about any topic. If a person is not getting significant coverage in reliable source, we do not generally have an article about them. It's pretty simple, and is not so much about "publicity" or "noticeability" but simply about whether secondary sources have talked about the person or topic in question or not. There are thousands upon thousands of notable organizations and businesses, and their leaders (CEO, Director, chairman, president, etc.) usually change quite frequently. It would be horribly ill-advised to have articles about all of these folks, many of which would simply say "she was the president of ______, until she resigned" assuming the person was not discussed to some significant degree in reliable sources, as seems to be the case here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's (apostrophes working again) not an unreasonable argument/explanation, though I can't say I'm convinced when the outcome is the loss of information that's useful and made accessible by Wikipedia - sum of human knowledge in one place. The rules are essentially there to prevent abuse and inaccuracy. If an organisation is notable, it's not unreasonable to assume the notability of someone deemed suitable or with the authority to become the head of it, however often the leader may change, in the absence of a quota for the absolute number of articles or volume of content. So in the end, more Pikachu and notable porn stars - notability does seem to boil down to noticeability, which is why it's not worth trying to create serious articles that have to be defended beyond the amount of time they're worth. But anyhow, we're on to arguments of principle. Opbeith (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references establish his notability under our rules. He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plenty of references, but all but one either fail to qualify as reliable sources, or relate to his council seat and candidacy as an MP, which doesn't count. That leaves a mention of him representing a case that got the attention of Channel 4 news. I found a few other news stories where he was mentioned as a representative in a legal case, but nothing about the person himself. Falls a long way short of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how Legal Action Group, the most prominent UK human rights law practices, Commonwealth Lawyers Association, an NGO representing 40 UK trades unions, etc., are all assumed to be unreliable sources, assumed to be willing to associate themselves with and report / describe someone passing himself off as more important than he is? The Clarke case was widely reported - it got rather more than just "the attention of Channel 4 News", though that's hardly insignificant in itself, but how many references are necessary? That got the widely reported publicity but it was the Morgans case that makes Jackman more significant - http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000217/morgan-3.htm But that only describes his intervention in a significant role in a significant case, of course it says "nothing about the person himself". Clearly moderate notability is not imputable on the basis of a body of evidence - it has to be as explicit as a Playboy centrefold (explicit, that is, in the sense that as I understand it a Playboy Playmate qualifies as notable ipso facto). Opbeith (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, on second glance Legal Action Group probably could qualify as a reliable source (assuming this publication is editorially independent of Mr. Blackman), but this is still a minor mention in a much larger article. All of the other mentions are either incidental to cases or events that Mr. Blackman was involved in, or letters or press releases that he put his name to. The bottom line is that you don't get notability by association, and that means simply representing a client in a notable case doesn't get you a Wikipedia article. Might be able to make an exception if it was a major landmark case, but this isn't it. Do you have any articles in independent reliable sources about Lionel Blackman himself? That might change things. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Being a councillor is NN, but I still consider that PPCs for major parties should be kept until the election is over, and if necessary culled afterwards. I suspect that his advocacy roles and being the first solicitor to address the House of Lords provide slight notability, but we need associated articles such as Solicitors' International Human Rights Group before that is clear. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If people aren't notable now they won't be after the election and Blackman has zero chance of winning Esher. The best solution to this would be short referenced bios of major candidates in the relevant constituency article though this in itself requires making a judgement call. There are a number of seats were UKIP, the Greens and the BNP for example have a good chance of beating one of the main three parties for third place so in those cases it would be difficult to justify. Valenciano (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned previously, it's his HR activities that are significant, he's hardly notable as an untried PPC, but given that the previous LibDem candidate got 30 per cent of the vote last time out, his chances are hardly "zero", so "wait and see" wouldn't be unreasonable.Opbeith (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above regarding the "do we have articles on PPCs for major parties" issue, there was a recent discussion about this and it was decided to slightly adjust the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN to read as follows: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." So assuming Blackman does not otherwise meet the notability guideline (which I believe to be true), standing for election is not good enough and the article should be redirected. Note that this decision about WP:POLITICIAN came out of a past AfD similar to this one and was discussed here at some length with the express purpose of providing a standard for these exact situations. I think we need to abide by that consensus for now (it's not irrelevant that Peterkingiron was the only person who opposed it), which means this article should be turned into a redirect. If by chance Blackman wins we can always restore the article later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, I'm afraid it's going to be difficult to get anyone to spend time doing a Solicitors' International Human Rights Group article in the knowledge that this is what lies in wait, I'm certainly not daft enough to. The point I was trying to make was that when it comes to major - notable - organisations issuing invitations to be a participant in a panel of international observers or acting as patrons or providing speakers on a regular basis and in particular joining as co-signatories in open letters in public appeals on important subjects, this is not notability by contagion. It's endorsement. When Justice for Colombia - with its own TUC-backed status - assembles a group of lawyers whom Doughty St Chambers are prepared to confirm are a group of leading UK human rights lawyers, that is source reliability twice over. When Justice for Colombia highlight five delegation participants on the cover of their report Rule of Law - Doughty Street, Garden Court, Old Square, Thompsons (all up the top of the tree) and fifthly Lionel Blackman - that is not notability by contagion; it is not an arbitrary association, it is an indication that the participant was a member of a select group chosen on the basis of merit. Or is that simply guesswork - might Lionel Blackman have been chosen by lottery as the lucky nonentity picked at random to make up the numbers? When Jackman is listed as one of only four individual endorsers of the Stop the Wall Palestine open letter, alongside Luisa Morgantini (ex Vice President of the European Parliament), Michael Mansfield QC and Fanny-Michaela Reisin, the inclusion of his signature is not arbitrary. Similarly when Graem Mew of Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association (CLA) and Mark Muller of the Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) issue a joint statement on human rights and attacks on lawyers and court officers in Zimbabwe, the status of a cosignatory is hardly to be considered equivalent to that of Lady Gaga's niece.

When the opening up of solicitor advocacy was one of the most notable developments in the UK legal profession in recent years and a solicitor advocate then goes on to win a case taken up from the magistrates' court to the House of Lords, the highest forum of English law (as it was at the time), is the report of the case itself not a reliable enough source in itself? Do non-notable cases succeed before the House of Lords? There's surely enough evidence of judgment by Blackman's peers, one way or another, even if press releases weren't newsworthy enough to get sufficiently regurgitated in the press to provide the Wikipedia formal seal of approval. Opbeith (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of horror films: 2010s

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

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

Keep AfD is not cleanup. As we're already in 2010, most of the films scheduled for release this year should have a RS to verify that. Ditto for anything post 2010 - if it can't be sourced, it needs to be removed until such sources exist. Lugnuts (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. And is Jennifer Aniston really going to star in "Leprechaun Returns"? Warrah (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and clean up such falsehoods. Erik (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be bolder and delete the mess! :) Warrah (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts cleaned up the article since only part of the content was inappropriate. Do you still want to delete the entire topic despite this cleanup? Erik (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if pared to confirmed films. Acceptable method of categorization by decade, even if we're only two months into said decade. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prune all entries with no citations. AFD is not a garbage incinerator.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: per nom, WP:DIRECTORY and as one of the most poorly sourced and hoax infused articles on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid list of upcoming horror films. AfD is not clean-up. If the list suffices when it is well-sourced, then fixing the sources is the approach to take. Erik (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This can be brought up to snuff of other lists such as the list of 1930s horror films which is cited. I've tried discussing with the main contributor to this article User:Zombie433, but he or she just keeps deleting and talk messages I leave for them. Any idea on how to approach this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every bit as valid as List of horror films: 2000s and all the rest. This one's much more a work-in-progress than the others, but with sourcing, that shouldn't matter. Even if we were to remove the up-coming films (not necessary if they're sourced, and the list is maintained), we're already into 2010, and I believe there have been a couple-or-three horror films released, justifying the list. Dekkappai (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:OSE. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about you learn to debate by saying what you mean instead of mis-using Wikispeak? Pointing to "OSE" in an AfD on one article out of a series of articles linked by year or decade is a spurious counter-argument. And while you're at it, read the "Directory" one you inappropriately use above to justify your vote. There is no rational way lists of notable film releases in a specific year and genre can be considered "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, Genealogical entries, The White or Yellow Pages, Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or resource[s] for conducting business, Sales catalogs, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, or A complete exposition of all possible details." If you get that through your head, my time spent looking at that inappropriate link and spurious argument will not have been in vain. Best regards and happy editing. Dekkappai (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is appropriate. It's unfortunate you felt compelled to resort to an ad hominem argument. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE says to consider precedent and consistency of similar articles. The preexisting lists show that this one is just the next in line. Surely there are issues with part of the content, but it is indisputable that there are already horror films for this decade. Erik (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not really. It says that reasoning should be applied to arguments. So if one is using OSE as an argument, one should explain why and not just state the fact. Similarly, in refuting a OSE argument, an explanation of why the OSE argument can be considered invalid should be provided. At least that's how I read it. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dekkappai used reasoning in his argument. He said that similar lists existed and that there are already released horror films this decade that justify the list. If all the unreleased films and red links are an issue, we can hack away at them, but that will still leave a set of released horror films that will no doubt grow throughout this decade. Erik (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A huge number of the entries are nothing but an attempt to end run WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL to talk about movies that are coming up, but haven't had significant coverage. At first glance, the article looks well sourced, until you look at the sources. Most are from 2 sources, dreadcentral.com and bloody-disgusting.com. I'm not convince either or both would pass as RS's. In all, it would be better served as a category rather than an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have lists by decade at List of horror films. There are already horror films that have come out for this decade so far. At the very least, the list is able to list films that have come out or films that are completed and are being promoted presently. Part of this topic's content is problematic, not the very topic itself. Erik (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, part of a Wikipedia essay on deletion debates, suggests that the fact that similar articles exist is not really a valid argument to keep a page. debate discussions ought to centre around consensus policy. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the relevant passage again: "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." The fact that multiple lists of horror films by decade exist provides "extremely important insight" on the discussion for this list article. The issue with the article is a clean-up issue. The precedent argument applies here to keep the list; we should focus our efforts on cleaning it up and maintaining it properly. Erik (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why not go through the article and remove the unsourced bits? AfD should not be used as your personal army. The ones being sourced by BD and DC wouldn't have anything to do with your decision, would it? —Mike Allen 23:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't such a list form a category rather than a stand alone article? See WP:CAT, which is Wikispeak for the Wikipedia guideline on the use of the categorization feature of the wiki software! Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category already exists: Category:2010s horror films. This does not mean a list is forbidden. We use lists for films all across the board; is there really a non-category reason why we should not have such a list? WP:CLN says, "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems." Erik (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the list article is only going to contain films already in Wikipedia, it is merely a duplicate of the category and, in my opinion, not necessary. If it includes films not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it serves its own purpose. But that raises the question - what's the point of a list with lots of "red links"? it serves no purpose, as by definition, the list can say very little about the contents therein. I'll stick with "delete", i think! Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I quoted above, the existence of a category does not forbid a list for the same set of films. In addition, if you think that some red links do not belong in the list, we can discuss removing them. However, you cannot dispute that there have been horror films released this decade so far and that there will inevitably be more horror films forthcoming. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Erik (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL, also, adds nothing beyond Category:2010s horror films Dlabtot (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to the state of the article. There are already horror films that have come out this decade. At the very least, we should trim the problematic entries. It is common sense to assume that this decade will see more horror films. In addition, WP:CLN clearly states that the existence of a category does not forbid a list. Erik (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now removed all redlinked titles that had no sources. Please feel free to prune any I've missed. I'll try to get RS for any unsourced blue-linked articles too. Hopefully this is the start of keeping this article. Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: This AfD seems to have come of the back of this spam report with the AfD nominator removing the links that are being used as (valid) sources. Lugnuts (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The presence of bad entries in a list (even lots of them) is not a good reason for deleting the list itself, so I think anything that cannot be properly sourced should be removed (which Lugnuts appears to have started on - nice work). Also, even if WP:CRYSTAL applies to some entries in the list, it does not apply to the list itself - there are some films in the list that have already been released, and there are certain to be a lot more -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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