Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< 9 March 11 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Summarily closing as per Wikipedia:Speedy keep #5. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Victorian storms

AfDs for this article:
2010 Victorian storms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. There is no evidence that the storm has historic or cultural significance. The recentness of the event is a warning sign; there does not appear to have been any deaths or any property damage rising above the norm for this kind of thing. At the end of the day, it's just a storm. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not disputing that it meets the General Notability Guidelines. This isn't a delete on notability grounds, it's a delete on the grounds that it's a class of material that Wikipedia doesn't cover, as per WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." See also WP:MILL for further illustration of why everything that meets WP:N does not automatically get a Wikipedia article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I say it's not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, would have expanded except that I am editing at work (in flagrant contravention of my employer's internet policy) and I got called away to actually do some work. :) The storm is notable on an historic basis. This is not just my opinion, a BoM spokesman has said "Saturday's storms will go down in the history books, characterised by the large amounts of hail"[1] Now, admittedly this is one of our rinky-dink antipodean meteorolists, who probably isn't as sophistiocated as your meteorologists in Europe and North America, but it is his opinion. The storm also caused significant damage to the city's main railway station, one of its major sports stadiums and its major performing arts venue. Again, I know it is in a city tucked away in the far corners of the world and doesn't raise a blip in more sophisticated areas but nevertheless us down here think it was a pretty big deal. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm from Canberra. It's not Northern Hemisphere bias. (a) Someone saying "will go down in the history books" is clearly WP:CRYSTAL territory, and (b) WP:EVENT calls for "national or international" impact, and if there's any such impact, I have to say my good faith searches aren't showing Canberra feeling it just yet. You'd be looking for a Federal grant or interstate SES assistance to satisfy the "national or international" clause. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merits aside, this couldn't have just waited until it was off the main page? WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. The event passes WP:EVENT due to the diversity of news coverage, national significance and non-routine nature. The CBD of Melbourne turns into a lake and that's not notable? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't realise it was ON the main page or yes, I probably would have waited. Feel free to further my learning; is there an easy way to tell that an article is on the main page without actually VISITING the main page? Re: WP:EVENT, the problem here would appear to be WP:EFFECT - that these storms do not have "lasting effects", "historical significance" and are not "a precedent or catalyst for another event". About four out of the eight Australian capitals get flooded in any given year; that doesn't make the relevant storms Hurricane Katrina or even the 2003 Canberra bushfires. A freak snowfall in a town that doesn't normally get snow may be widely reported - but at the end of the day, it's just not encyclopedic, beyond maybe a mention in the "Climate" section of the relevant geographic article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm surprised this is on the main page, although I do think its notable. If an article is (or has been) on the main page, it will say so on the article's talk page. Regarding WP:EFFECT, that is not a bar that must be crossed. There are other ways an event can pass WP:EVENT, being those listed in my keep !vote above. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the education. I did check the talk page prior to AfD but I think I skimmed the boxes and moved straight to the chat. See also my further comments on WP:EVENT below in reply to Marcusmax. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:MILL is an essay not a guideline or policy, WP:N takes precedent over an essay any day. Per WP:NTEMP (which is an officially accepted guideline), "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage." -Marcusmax(speak) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but every item reported in a newspaper meets WP:N. Per WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is nevertheless not an indiscriminate collection of news information. The arbiter is WP:EVENT, which calls for events to have "enduring historical significance" or "a lasting significant effect", or in the alternative to have "widespread (national or international) impact" and be "re-analyzed afterward". None of which these storms meet. I cited WP:MILL as the explanation for WHY WP:N is not, per policy, considered the final arbiter of inclusion in Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, transient coverage that last a few days is not evidence that the event is not a transient news item. Many times in the past I have notvoted to keep items that other have nominated for deletion under WP:NOT#NEWS, but this event is the purest example of news I have ever encountered. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well none of this even makes much sense, how can one judge the long term impact of a event when it isn't even a week old? With that being said I find the core Wikipedia policy of notability should be used in this instance, while the impact is further determined. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: how can we judge the long term effects of recent events, the answer to that is we can't, and we therefore don't start articles on things "in case they become notable". (See WP:CRYSTAL.) I'm really not sure how that squares up with the "In The News" section of the front page, and of course there's an obvious information-gathering advantage in starting articles as events happen, because that's obviously when people are going to be most passionate and interested in the topic. However, that's a matter to take to policy reform. As of the present, policy's against retaining this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is easy to judge; the nature of the event and lack of injuries, plus the type of coverage, indicates it's news. Furthermore, the "core" Wikipedia guideline of notability has a specialized Wikipedia:Notability (events) standard, which was approved by a greater consensus of editors than any single AfD. What you are saying is, essentially, "I don't believe in consensus." Abductive (reasoning) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys do have valid viewpoints, but if this storm truly caused hundreds of millions of dollars (which we can't be sure of yet) then that too me makes it notable even with the lack of death. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the delete passes, how about the page gets userfied to Marcusmax's userspace, with no prejudice against reintroducing it once sources appear to establish its ongoing significance? Millions of dollars of damage by itself sadly isn't notable - that much money goes missing in capital works blowouts every day around the world without getting wiki pages - but if, say, the Victorian government makes a special disaster relief budget appropriation, or newspapers do stories on people who go out of business because of it, or a business quarterly does an article on an associated Victorian construction boom, that's the sort of thing you can use to found "lasting significance" sufficient to pass the test. Well, in my opinion, anyway. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, just as long as the In The News section isn't directed to my sandbox. As for monetary value and storms at WP:SEVERE, tornadic storms are supposedly notable if they cause at least $250 million obviously this is non-tornadic so that probably doesn't apply. But something similar to me would be fair for this article too. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable event which caused widespread damage to the Melbourne metropolitan area, with significant damage done in Melbourne's CBD. Just because this event may not be seen as significant to those in other countries, this doesn't mean that its not notable to others including the country which the event happened in. We have articles on Cyclones/Hurricanes which have caused $400 million (or less) and I do not see how capital works blowouts has anything to do with damage caused by a rare weather event (Not everyday a supercell hits Melbourne or any other Australian capital [except for Brisbane]).
"there does not appear to have been any deaths or any property damage rising above the norm for this kind of thing."
Thankfully there was no deaths but there were some minor injuries, there was widespread property damage which isn't the norm for Melbourne.
"At the end of the day, it's just a storm."
Well then all storms (Cyclones/Hurricanes, Supercells, Hailstorms, Thuderstorms, Duststorms, Windstorms ect) are just that, a storm but at the end of the day severity of the storm, the damage bill, any deaths and injuries (not all storms have deaths or severe injuries) makes the event notable.
Also the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) have put up a brief summary on the event, and if you say the BoM always does this, they don't as a summary is only released when there is a significant and notable event! Bidgee (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret "isn't the norm for Melbourne" to mean "of local interest only". The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) source you mention is a primary source and inappropriate for establishing notability. Abductive (reasoning) 07:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean nationally as a view, so don't interpret something where I clearly said about capital cities. Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) is an authority, therefore can be used to establish notability. The BoM is like the National Weather Service (NWS) in the USA is like the BoM and no one has questioned the NWS being used to establishing notability for weather events affecting the USA so I can't see why the BoM is treated differently. The BoM will be releasing a full report on the event at a later date. Bidgee (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(BoM) may be an authority, but it absolutely is a primary source. We do not use the National Weather Service to establish notability; it is good for facts. If the NWS said that yesterday was the hottest March 11th in the history of Poughkeepsie, New York, would that mean I could create a Wikipedia article on it? Please familiarize yourself with the policies mentioned above. Abductive (reasoning) 07:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources may be used, being an authority helps (Those who work at the NWS or BoM are far more trained on meteorology then the media) but yes secondary sources should be used if available, Quote from WP:PRIMARY "Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
"If the NWS said that yesterday was the hottest March 11th in the history of Poughkeepsie, New York, would that mean I could create a Wikipedia article on it?"
You are talking about a totally different weather event, also this Melbourne/Victorian event has not just been reported one organisation.
"Please familiarize yourself with the policies mentioned above."
Please don't insult me, I have been an editor here for almost five years. Bidgee (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made up that weather event. You are misunderstanding the nature of notability and of primary sources, and that led me to my request. It was not meant to be insulting. Abductive (reasoning) 07:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Again you made-up a weather event that is totally unrelated to this one and has no relevants to this (not to mention no facts). Trying to use it as to use it as if I have "misunderstanding" is completely an untrue accusation. Bidgee (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't know the policy well enough to comment on whether the article should be kept or not, although my gut feeling is that it does meet notability requirements, however I would like to make a comment on your above example. This was not just "the hottest day in history". This was a major weather event that caused major damage and had a huge impact on tranportation, events etc etc (these arguments have already been made, I'm very briefly summarising). The insurance costs itself are astronomical.[2][3] A hot day certainly doesn't wouldn't have the same wide reaching affects, nor would it be likely to bring a major city to a standstill, nor would it be likely to feature on international news. I'm tempted to make "other articles exist, so...." claims but will refrain. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw apologies for the poor writing in my comment, its been a long day and my brain is fried. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw 2 - the nominator's comment that "there doesn't appear to be any property damage rising above the norm" made me laugh. One of the two major railway stations in the state's capital city - and the only one hosting the rural trains - had to be evacuated because of damage to the roof. I wouldn't say that that was "normal". PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This storm was a notable event. Not in my 30+ years or in my parent's memory has there been such a storm in this State. Flooding is common in other areas of Australia but not Melbourne. My children will always remember Grandma's frantic phone call when massive hails stones smashed through the house windows and through the car windows. Wikipedia is where they will go for information when doing a school project on it. The State's two major train stations shutting down is mind blowing. The AFL never cancel a football match. This was a holiday weekend, the middle of a festival, and people from all around Australia were impacted. This was not just any normal storm.--Giraffee (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WP:NOTNEWS policy reads "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion ... routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion." I don't see that as a restriction here. WP:EVENT is more relevant, and notes that storms can be notable, although "a minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable." The article reports some human impact, in the form of injuries and evacuations. This particular storm may also influence the Australian debate on climate change (which would guarantee notability), but such an impact can only be guessed at, since the event is recent (WP:EVENT notes that events "that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable ... [but] this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not"). The storms were reported outside Australia: that suggests some degree of notability. I think deletion would be totally inappropriate, although it may make perhaps sense to merge into an article on "Severe storms in Australia." In any case, I think this article should remain as is for now, and be reevaluated after a few months. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Token Moral The-System-Is-Flawed Delete, I live in Australia, read the paper every day, and this event barely registered. It was two days of rain for cryin' out loud, with no disproportionate amount of deaths/injuries/damage. Unencyclopaedic subject which will attract next to no viewers. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's fairly obvious, if you read the article, that it was a lot more than "two days of rain". It was covered by newspapers in Brisbane and Sydney, at least, and also received international coverage (newspaper articles and on the nightly news) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability threshold for tornados is $250 million, and this storm will exceed that, never mind the other notability indicators. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And 10,000 people have read the article already. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page views != interested persons. If that were the case, every person on Earth would be loading up Google every couple of minutes. To the best of my recollection this wasn't a tornado, and if you had read above you'd have realised this was not a notability nomination (doubly so when it comes to tornado notability criteria), but a NOTNEWS nom. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, I was responding to the (incorrect) suggestion that the page "will attract no viewers." Secondly, this event seems more notable than a tornado in a tornado zone, rather than less, because it's more unusual. Thirdly, the original nomination was based on a misunderstanding of WP:NOTNEWS, which rules out "routine news reporting" -- WP:EVENT makes it quite clear that articles on events are quite acceptable, if notability criteria are met. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CORN and WP:CRACK I say BORKise this article pending the MfP review, assuming the Portal:CHICKENFOOT precedent holds. Clearly you missed the 'the-system-is-flawed' bit in my vote (psst, it's the text in bold). Perhaps unlike many, I understand the meaning behind all those neat little acronyms you cling on to, but also unlike many, I also understand that we shape policy, not vice versa. This event is utterly insignificant. It is barely worth a mention in the Climate in Melbourne article (if said article existed). It will not be discussed any more than perhaps a stubbed toe in the weeks - years - centuries to come. A six word sentence in an esoteric meteorological journal is all this event can ever aspire to, or perhaps a footnote to a table of data. I'm sure you're aware that NOTNEWS actually links to a section labelled "We are not an indiscriminate collection of information", and rarely has that sort of statement felt more appropriate. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, please. There are other articles on meteorological events such as Boscastle flood of 2004 and they are interesting now and will be, until cricket-ball sized hailstones happen every other day. Vernon White . . . Talk 15:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHwha- hey, this wasn't on the news anywhere in Britain or newspapers. I never even realized Australia had had two days of rain and a bit of hail in the past few days. And anyway, big wow. Britain gets that often and everytime it happens it doesn't go on Wikipedia. Btw the Boscastle flood was notable, this was not. Boscastle was on worldwide news, not just local.
  • Keep Regardless of its arguable significance it is, nonetheless, a historical event and worthy of some mention if users wish to write an article about it. That said, I don't believe it necessarily deserves a full article but could be included as a section of another article (i.e.) Severe storms in Australia). - Anonymous

Ggoere (talk) 16:57, 11 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streaker (David Brin)

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

Plot-only description of a non-notable starship. There are no secondary sources which analyze the topic. Material receives more than sufficient coverage in other articles. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Streaker appears in most of Brin's novels set in the Uplift Universe. Both David Brin and these novels are definitely notable. Why shouldn't the connecting thread, the Streaker, be notable? I fail to see Abductive's insistence on secondary citations as the sole measure of notability, since whether or not some academic has gotten around to writing about "the Streaker as a symbol of whatever" is essentially a random event. DavidHobby (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or a sign of total lack of academic interest. By the way, it is not my insistence on secondary sources; this is from WP:PSTS, a Wikipedia policy developed by years of consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BEFORE would seem to expect a higher level of value than that put forth to date by the nominator. You asserted that no secondary sources exist; a simple Google Books search has demonstrated that to be false. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As can well be imagined, the "sources" you point to are either the Brin books themselves, or passing mentions of the ship. Nothing there to hang an encyclopedia article on; no analysis of the ship. Abductive (reasoning) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem isn't with the sourcing, it's in your absolutist and incorrect statement. Because your nomination is fundamentally false, and further that you've chosen to try and define what "is" is rather than amend your nom, you lose credibility and respect from other editors, like me. By all means, say that the sources are inadequate, that's a great conversation starter, but don't falsely claim that none exist. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It isn't fundamentally false; that is an unfair characterization of my methods. For example, I just removed the notability tag I put on Gubru, a fictional race from Brin's series, because it has appropriate sourcing. In any case, much worse flaws in an AfD nomination, such as a WP:POINTY nom, do not derail the nomination. This topic is not notable, and nothing can change that. Abductive (reasoning) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You said "Article has no secondary sources, as none exist." and cited WP:PSTS above. Are you asserting that none of the sources I found are, in fact, a secondary source? Again, saying that they are inadequate, insufficient, or not primarily focused on the topic would be fine. You continue to maintain that no secondary sources, whatsoever, mention this particular fictional element. That, on the other hand, isn't fine. Good faith does not demand that we treat intentional falsehoods left unretracted by an editor who's been show their error as anything more than bad faith. Again, I implore you: admit your error, amend your statement, and participate in the discussion on the basis of fact, rather than transparent and ineffective self-justification. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • So amended. I did not use the word "mention"; my definition of secondary sources is the same as in the Wikipedia article: "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." Abductive (reasoning) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking second keep notvote. There are no valid secondary sources that analyze this subject. None. Zero. Zilch. Abductive (reasoning) 17:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I figured it was clear that I wasn't voting twice. The picture and discussion of the Streaker in _Fantasy art masters: the best in fantasy and SF art worldwide‎_ would be a "valid secondary source analyzing the subject" wouldn't it? As others have noted, you seem to be consistently over-stating your case for deletion. I also argue that Brin's book of essays counts as a secondary source. Though he is the author, it is additional discussion of the Streaker in a separate source than the books the ship is featured in. (I agree that additional publications by the same author may not add to the notability of the author's books, but that's not what we're arguing about. The case for the notability of the novels themselves is very strong, and (presumably) not being questioned.) DavidHobby (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brin himself cannot count as an independent source. Yes, it is secondary.
  • The mention of Streaker in the art book doesn't analyze the topic at all.
  • In this Google Books return you linked to, the author calls Streaker "a coveted McGuffin". This is evidence that Streaker is a mere plot device, and not worthy of an encylopedia article. See WP:PLOT. Abductive (reasoning) 19:20, 18 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 keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 06:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middlebush Reformed Church

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

Non-notable church: "Middlebush Reformed Church at 1 South Middlebush Road at the corner of Amwell Road is the fourth oldest church in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey." The article makes no other claim of notability, and features a unencyclopedic description of the real estate deals in the church's history and an equally unencyclopedic list of pastors. Sourcing is largely primary. Abductive (reasoning) 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagging for rescue will not obscure the fact that, in spite of being 175 years old, there is nothing to distinguish this church from many others. There are three others in its township that are older. Abductive (reasoning) 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may not realize this but defending your position by confronting every other comment here feels a bit like badgering. I feel there is enough to meet our notability and sourcing guidelines. The church has served as a community hub for decades in a historical district and numerous sources support the content we have which is pretty dry stuff to begin with. Is this of general interest to many folks? Perhaps not but we don't write to please everyone, we stick to policies and cover our subjects dispassionately. Like I said above you and I may have to agree to disagree on this one. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proof is in the sources ... anyone can look at them just as I did, all seem reliable to me ... Wikipedia demands notability not remarkability, you just need to noticed by the media, not be the oldest or biggest. We have Guinness World Records for that. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk)
I urge interested parties to read the article on this unremarkable church, and consider just how trivial the mentions are. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia cares about is if the topic is noticed by reliable sources, and that each fact has a source. It meets that standard. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia's secondary source article: "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." This church has nothing like that. Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked the Courier News was not part of the church, are you suggesting they are? Listed is a 332 word article independent of the church. You have to click through an read the actual references, not just look at the quote that was used in the reference. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does the article say? Nothing approaching "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information". Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 facts from 10 sources are mathematically identical to 10 facts from a single source. Since you love quotes, I will say that it does provide "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, [and] evaluation of the original information" Others can judge for themselves. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable church. Apart from the good points made by others, there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger into articles about the town or the denomination. But I am content with the current version which seems a good addition to our encyclopedia. Many thanks to RAN and others for creating it. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see notability as a real issue here. I'm more concerned about the article's orphan status. There really is only one good link to the page.HornColumbia (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure which one, but i think the church is included in either Kingston Mill Historic District or Middlebush Village Historic District, which are NRHP-listed HDs on National Register of Historic Places listings in Somerset County, New Jersey. So there exists NRHP nomination documents for the historic district which will have more material about the church, as a contributing property, and it will be natural to link to this church article from the NRHP HD one, when it is created. Is it linked from the town article already? (To whoever might develop the church article further, please request a free copy of the NRHP nom doc from the National Register -- contact me separately for more info.) --doncram (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - a quick look at the map shows that it is part of the Middlebush Village Historic District on the NRHP - this should be better documented (see Doncram above). The Historic District is pretty small - about 4 square blocks - so I suspect this building is the star of the HD (or at least the tallest building in it  :-) ). For buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, I think the rule is "National" + "Historic" = notable, with reliability presumed because both the state historic agency and the Federal NRHP (part of the Park Service) have to sign off on it. Smallbones (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW as at least one account who seems to usually say to delete is even saying to keep in this one, but also per "non-notable" not being a valid reason for deletion per common sense. Something that is nearly 200 years old that is verifiable through reliable sources is about as encyclopedic as you get. Given the results in Google Books and Google Scholar, surely some article on the subject is writable. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 14:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Smallbones beat me to most of this by a few seconds: I note that the NRHP listing for the Middlebush Village Historic District calls out a religious structure as part of the district and a date of 1834 for year of significance. Since the subject was founded in 1834, that is strongly suggestive that the subject is the primary structure in the Historic District, which is only one block wide and two long. Also: (From the Somerset County Cultural& Heritage Commission report for 2008.
Middlebush Village Historic District
The Middlebush Village Historic District is a small residential hamlet located along South Middlebush Road. There are 34 historic buildings in the district dating from 1791 to the 1920s. The architecture of the district illustrates the full range of architectural styles that dominated America from the 18th century to the early 20th century These styles include Federal, Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, Italianate, Queen Ann, Colonial Revival and Craftsman styles. The most significant structure in the Village is the Middlebush Reformed Church, which was constructed in 1919 in the Gothic Revival and Craftsman styles. Other significant structures include the Voorhees House (now O’Connor’s Restaurant) constructed in 1793 in the vernacular Georgian Style, as well as a 19th century Dutch barn. (emphasis added)

So, we have the most significant structure in a Historic District. According to our rules, that's prima facie evidence of notability.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I stumbled upon the prods that the nominator and others have apparently moved onto, and then found this AfD. Whatever it looked like before, its worth keeping now.--Milowent (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's a historic church. I find 50,000 Google hits and 40 GoogleBooks hits. The article has many good references. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Being in a national historic district is not sufficient, and we have rather consistently held that the building needs to be individually entered. For example, every house on my block is within an historic district, and there is unquestionably reliable documentation for every one of them in the documents for that district. But none of them are individually entered, because none of them are sufficiently individually notable. Perhaps this church does merit individual listing, but it doesn;t seem to have it yet. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are citing your own personal and subjective standard of remarkability beyond Wikipedia's own concept for inclusion. Wikipedia only asks for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
I agree with DGG that not every property, not even every "contributing property", mentioned in an NRHP historic district needs a separate wikipedia article. But, some individual properties in historic districts, such as this one, do seem to meet wikipedia notability. Note, once a building is covered in a historic district, it probably won't get a separate NRHP listing even if it would be eligible on its own, because the HD already provides whatever tax benefits and zoning protection that might apply in a given jurisdiction. It can be a judgment call when to split out a separate article for a contributing property. If it is a separate article, there is a NRHP infobox version available to describe it. --doncram (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how this article is probably going to be kept, I am heartened by the discovery that the church is a contributing property to a NRHP district. This at least prevents the creation of a precedent of keeping the article based on the overreaching arguments made prior to the NRHP discovery. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 13 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 Redirect and merge to Martin Weiss - should have thought of this before taking it to AfD ThemFromSpace 23:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weiss Research Inc

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

This article lacks notability as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources independant of the company itself. The article is also written using promotional language and is very likely a paid-editing spam piece. It was published earlier by a user since banned for housing a sockpuppet army and using them to engage in paid editing. It is likely one of the articles created though this posting on elance dot com. The first awarded user, "Tayzen" is the banned editor who created the earlier article. The buyer here, dpatel799, self identifies with the user who owns this profile which admits to doing SEO work for "moneyandmarkets.com", which is operated by Weiss Research. ThemFromSpace 23:28, 10 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 userfy to User:Thinkyourmoney/Financial Therapy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Therapy

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

This is not an encyclopedia article, it's more like a how-to. The name of the original creator is problematic, as well. Woogee (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The name of the article in the first place is so general, it's a term which could pratically mean anything. Also the creator, see here, seems to sell a product by building some notability on his concept of a Financial Therapy. Of course google will generate a lot of link, it's like creating an article on Red Cars and deciding that it means cars which are fast. -RobertMel (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • please keep the article

We are the creator of the wiki entry for Financial Therapy. I understand that the name of the creator might be construed as a problem and that could be resolved by taking down this entry and putting it up using a more non-descript user name. If there is a way of changing the user name on this article without taking it down that would be preferable. I think this issue is about how to get the job done. Similarly I think the content issue is a matter of how to get the job done. If anything, one of us thought the content was too analytical. Is there a particular section such as the Framework for Financial Therapy where you thought it became too much of a how to? We could make amendments. We tried to stay away from “how to” as Financial Therapy is a virtually vacant niche. Specifically the Canadian Task Force on Financial Literacy is looking for a working framework as there is no such thing as a functional “Financial Therapy” or a “Financial Literacy” program. If anything our entry was entered as an opportunity for others to add to, amend and modify the understanding of what financial therapy is and should be. This topic is of high interest in this society and it should be addressed in Wiki. April is Financial Literacy Month in America. I think deletion would be overkill and unnecessary considering how easily the entry can be amended. Thinkyourmoney (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — Thinkyourmoney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Response You did put a lot of work into this article, and I hope you kept a copy. If the article is eventually deleted, for the reasons given here, parts of it could be inserted into the existing article on Financial literacy - a term which seems to be interchangeable with Financial Therapy. Even you are using the two terms as if they were synonyms, which is part of my problem with the article; the information should be kept under the better-known term IMO. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you will continue to contribute here regardless of the outcome of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence - due to two observations:
    1. There should be an article on Financial Therapy on Wikipedia. It is a notable expression, relevant, and well documented.
    2. It should in no way look like the current article which I would tag at least as {{Article issues|or|coi|refimprove|peacock|advert|synthesis|weasel|howto|introrewrite|inappropriate person}} --Pgallert (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suspect that "financial therapy" is probably just a non-notable neologism and an entirely trivial formation in any case. This text, with its Look At Me Capitals, is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It would need to be redone from scratch even if the underlying notion were not trivial: As Personal finances have been a taboo topic until now, all that can be put forward to define Financial Therapy is a “fill in” framework to address the need that the concept identifies. "This vocabulary void exhausts our energy. Witness all the jabber over “life planning,” “financial planning done right,” “financial life planning,” “interior finance,” “financial therapy” and “financial coaching.” These ideas all stand as proxies for different approaches to our personal relationships with money, yet none actually communicates succinctly or effectively." And, as noted above, it seems to be promoting a consultancy or "life coach" business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an essay with a big helping of how-to - both Wikipedia no-nos. In addition, the term "financial therapy" seems to be a neologism which is finding a little bit of use (there is even a Journal of Financial Therapy). But even the sources that use the term seem to list it as a subset of "financial planning" or "financial literacy" - both of which already have Wikipedia pages. I did find one use of the term by the Wall Street Journal but they seemed to be using it in a cutesy way. Overall I don't feel the term has reached the mainstream. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the article is kept the capitalization should be changed to "Financial therapy" - no capital T. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or have the article moved to user space for further work. Nuujinn (talk) 18:39, 14 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 Keep. Benjar has supplied sources that show the notability of this pioneering African American theologian. With no delete !votes beyond the nominator (whose call for deletion appears to be uncertain), consensus has determined the article deserves to stay. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Ida Robinson

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

Concerns of notability. We could possibly merge relevant info to Mount Sinai Holy Church of America, but the part on her is more detailed than this article. Airplaneman talk 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the citation to You Have Stept Out of Your Place: A History of Women and Religion in America pages 335-336 is valid. There are two paragraphs there about her as well as a quotation. The book itself is from a reputable publisher, and was reviewed at The Journal of American History December 1997, vol. 84, no. 3, p. 1028-1029, as well as in Journal of the American Academy of Religion Winter, 1997, vol. 65, no. 4, p. 905-907; Church History December 1997, vol. 66, no. 4, p. 889-890; The Journal of Religion July, 1998, vol. 78, no. 3, p. 494-495; and Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion June, 1997, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 330. Ida B. Robinson is also covered in Daughters of Thunder: Black Women Preachers and Their Sermons, 1850-1979 pages 194-209. It also is from a reputable publisher, Jossey-Bass. Although not as extensively reviewed, it also was reviewed in Journal of American History in March 1999, vol. 85, no. 4, p. 1617-1618. I would regard that second source as substantial coverage, especially when the other independent sources are considered. If kept, the article needs work, including moving to "Ida B. Robinson", as "bishop" is a title. --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was clearly notable in her time and left a legacy which endures. There was no internet around in her day to provide us with nice clickable sources, but the number of books and articles in which she is chronicled firmly establish her importance. I agree the article should be renamed Ida B. Robinson or (better) Ida Bell Robinson - the name by which she seems to be best known. --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google Books shows dozens of references to her (using the search string <Ida Robinson "mount sinai holy church">; I looked at just a few of these, and found substantive biographical information and consistent references to her as a pioneer. Article needs work, but appears to have the makings of an interesting contribution. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:44, 14 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. Tone 23:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Clinical Trials

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

Unmaintainable, unreferened list based on original research. Who decides what is considered "landmark"? RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are very reliable metrics for what constitutes a landmark trial - for example, the number of citations a paper receives, as well as the opinion of experts in the field. For example: http://www.medscape.com/resource/statins/rc-statins4. It was my intention to flesh out this article with citations, but it'll require a lot of work, so I posted it so I could get some help with it from other wikipedians. Also, I just want to add that I'm a doctor myself, and a repository of important clinical trials would be very useful for students of medicine. I think many wikipedians will find this article quite helpful, which should be the ultimate determinate of whether or not an article should be deleted. Adammarklenny (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-You could simply create it in Userspace and move it too Mainspace when it's complete. I'd be happy to help :).--SKATER Speak. 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not try a Google search and all sorts of reliable sources can be found, for example Landmark Clinical Trials by Goodman and Marks. John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Those believing such a article must be inherently "original research" are probably unfamiliar with the term "landmark clinical trial". Thincat (talk) 14:23, 17 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IHlebis

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

Seems to be a fictional person TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and expand. He's a YouTube personality, so he exists. Although this does not mean he's notable, I'm going with keep, as the nom statement said the article should be deleted over concerns of existence. Airplaneman talk 23:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the reference to iJustine - since he admits to being 13 years old. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hlebz deleted the AfD notice again - as well as adding a disruptive edit. Someone else reverted. It may be necessary to call this user to the attention of administrators if he keeps this up. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On review, I found additional false information in the article: The one reference he cites, from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, credits his "signature phrase" to iJustine, not to iHlebis; in fact it does not mention iHlebis at all. The infobox gives his birth year as 1980, but a category listed is "1996 births"; User:Hlebz inserted both of those contradictory dates. The latter date, 1996 (making him 13), is confirmed by the linkedin item above, which says he will graduate this year from a K-through-8 school. If any doubt about his age remains, you can see a picture of him here. I was tempted to remove the false information from the article, but let's just kill it once and for all. I'd like to see a speedy-delete or snowball-delete since the page is clearly fraudulent. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 15 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 Speedy delete per OP's request. Alexf(talk) 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cobalt (CAD program), Gallery of ray tracings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to see how this is suitable content for an encyclopaedia. WP:CFORK and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files seem to apply. This appears to be nothing more than a forum for advertising the authors work and/or capabilities of a particular CAD package. wjematherbigissue 22:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems clear enough to me. Right at the top of the gallery is an invitation to others to contribute “ ‘Topical and germane‘ additions … [that] … should be of interest to readers interested in Cobalt’s solid-modeling and image-rendering capabilities.” That’s pretty much what Wikipedia is about: the community adding topical and germane content that should be of interest to the reader. I think the nominator presumes nefarious motives where none exist. Greg L (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- whether or not this article is intended to promote the product or the author's artwork, this should not be on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not an accumulation of images. Reyk YO! 23:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I see no reason to remove images that help non-experts in particular to understand this kind of program. To remove them would be to damage the explanatory function of the article. [Disclosure that I did a little work on this article]. Tony (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’ve since revised the page to address what I think might be fairly described as a “Facebook”-like nature to it. For the record, what Wjemather objected to was this version of the gallery. I deleted the attributions, which I can see looked like mini-commercials, and I also deleted the open invitation for others to add content. The fact that anyone may contribute to Wikipedia is widely known and such an invitation seemed Facebookish and un-encyclopedic. Thus, this is the version of the Cobalt gallery I would propose going forward from here. I certainly wanted to get those pictures of the watches in the article but there simply isn’t sufficient room for more pictures in the main article without crowding.

    BTW, a wikifriend suggested the possibility of adding the gallery (as mini-thumbnails) as a section at the bottom of the main article rather than forking it to a separate page. Does this seem a better solution? Greg L (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update It seems others had the same idea. The content has now been imbedded (in a more encyclopedic fashion) into the article. No forking. Wjemather: You started this. I don’t know how to delete an article, which has been blanked. Please, be my guest to do whatever is done now. Greg L (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea, from my non-expert's vantage point. Tony (talk) 04:20, 11 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 redirect to First-person shooter. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First-person action game

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

A quick Google search fails to find any articles proving the notability of this topic. Without any reliable references, there is no proof to assert its disparity from the First-Person Shooter genre. Thus, if this article isn't deleted, it should at least be merged/redirected with the First Person Shooter Article  Marlith (Talk)  22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note A Google Scholar search returns usage of the term in academic articles. However, perusing those articles, no distinction is made between the first-person shooter and the first-person action game.  Marlith (Talk)  22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to FPS. The term FPS is more frequently used to describe "first person action games" than the phrase "first person action game," which isn't used by any major game publications as a genre. I would support incorporating this distinction into the FPS article, if it isn't already present, if only to point out that not all FPS's are actually "shooters," per se. Suggesting that the term FPS doesn't apply to games that in first-person but the player only uses a sword or similar is, frankly, disingenuous -- and, more importantly, all of the "examples" listed either involve shooting pretty heavily in the game or aren't generally considered FPS' (making the implied distinction meaningless -- who's calling "Portal" an FPS? It's a 3D puzzle game). Literally all of them. They're not first person action games, they're FPS' that, at certain points, require the user to play without shooting a gun. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean First-person shooter? FPS is just a ambiguous page. The examples currently listed are rather lame, since those games do have a lot of shooting in them. Better examples are listed at First-person game. Dream Focus 06:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant First-person shooter. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:34, 12 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) 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic magnate

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

Spammy. Reads like a user guide. All external links direct to the site covered by the article. Haruth (talk) 22:13, 10 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Taekwondo Council

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

Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week February 18, 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Makes sense to me it seems that they are mainly a face to avoid someone having to figger out which TKD org they whoudl seek to each time. --Natet/c 13:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:58, 10 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amareway

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

An holistic approach to life. Although a number of references are given, I am dubious about whether any of them counts as a reliable source. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, original research that uses so many words to say so little: Being aware is the process which turns our lives and improves them. It is not a one-time task, it is a life-long exploration. It can start in different ways, from different reasons. Being aware starts with understanding that, while the past made us what we are today, and the future may give us the time to put our skills at the service of our beloved ones, the present is the only tense which really counts, and here the only place where we are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valuable contribution with no commercial goals. References are provided, style is Wiki-friendly, copy is clean. No reason to remove it. - 11:40, 13 March 2010 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.4.49 (talk) — 174.6.4.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Non-notable. No matter how valuable and non-commercial the organization, no matter how clean the style, this topic fails the WP:N notability test. There is zero coverage of this term or movement by independent WP:RS reliable sources, either in the article or on Google. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evident notability. If coverage comes along later, or if the subject becomes more notable (or more widely known) over time, then an article might be appropriate - and we can revisit it, if and when. But we don't have the third-party coverage to justify an article at the moment. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:23, 16 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) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Woman's Song

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

Article is marginally about a collection of poetry, but then becomes more of an article about the author of said poetry - a bit WP:COATRACK flavored in my opinion. I had originally put up for speedy under A7, however User:Pink Bull declined it - so here we are. =) In any event, the item and the person do not appear to be notable at this point. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:31, 10 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 Deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid 5

Diary of a Wimpy Kid 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unpublished book, still being written. No solid release date. Not even a mention of a possible title. Per WP:CRYSTAL no grounds for a separate article. Deprodded by creator, nominating for AfD instead. Jarkeld (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid: My Last Year
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid: My Last Year (2nd nomination)
This time it is not quite as bad as at least there is no obviously false information in the article however there is next to no reliable information in it at all, which is the same problem as last time. The book will be notable once it is ready for publication and we have a real title for it and something to say about it. Until then, it has to go. I will tag it for speedy. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:29, 11 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 no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time. In addition, some of the delete comments focus not on WP:NOTE, but rather on complaints about perceived problems with the article itself - and AFD is not meant to be a form of article cleanup. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JoBlo.com

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

Not a notable website. It's only a self-published site that carries no official capacity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 10 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) 05:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bump (pricing game)

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

Entirely unsourced (tagged since November 2007) and non-notable article with subject material that is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Google search returns fansites and YouTube links. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:24, 10 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 redirect. Policy (in this case WP:POLITICIAN), strength of argument, and (least importantly) numbers show a consensus to redirect. Bristol South (UK Parliament constituency) seems to be the appropriate target at this time, but obviously if that changes anyone should feel free to alter it, and of course if Mr. Wright wins election this article can be resurrected. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wright (politician)

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

This article clearly fails the notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, a local councillor who is a prospective parliamentary candidate in the forthcoming UK General Election. The references consist mostly of press releases and some resultant stories in the local press. I redirected to Bristol South (UK Parliament constituency) as per WP:POLITICIAN. If he wins the seat on May 6, then the subject will have notability and the article can be re-instated. One editor reverted the re-direct three times, so I have nominated here for deletion (redirect to constituency). Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but which bit of WP:POLITICIAN suggests that there is "clear precedent that such cllrs are notable"? An analogy would be to divisional directors for medium sized corporations who generally are not notable as having not received substantial press coverage. Issuing a few press releases which are picked up by local news outlets does not cut the mustard. As to your speculation on the nomination, it is just that - unfounded speculation. This is one of a series of articles, put up by political activists from moer than one party, which I and others have redirected. The redirect on this one was reverted, by an editor who hasn't commented here so far, so I nominated. My preferred option is to redirect. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there's a clear precedent that such councillors aren't notable. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Wereon (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- There is a general understanding that candidature doesn't infer notability but there appears to be a depth of reporting about this guy that supports his notability to an acceptable level. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (essentially, delete but for being a useful search term). WP:POLITICIAN exists for a reason; being a general consensus that neither local politicians normere candidates are notable. There are, of course, exceptions and that's why we have WP:GNG. However, all of the coverage cited in this article is local. Even then, there's nothing that primarily covers the subject of the article (Mark Wright) in any great detail. But most of all, we have to question the reliability of these local sources: many local newspapers with low circulation (which constitute the vast majority of sources here) generally just churn out press releases. Take this for instance: "Mark Wright welcomes an announcement by his own party's leader". That's not reliable journalism. That's PR. The unreliability of the sources is reflective in this article, which is a totally uncritical PR job. That's why we require significant coverage in reliable sources as the standard for notability, not significant coverage in any sources. When that distinction, and the reasons behind it, are understood, this article fails. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not consensus that local politicians are not notable. WP:POLITICIAN supports this - it says: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." (Please, let's not start the "Bristol isnt a big city" nonsense either). The precedent is set by what is already accepted on wiki. There are a dozen such examples (often less worthy) at Category:Councillors in Manchester, Category:Councillors in Liverpool and Category:Councillors in Greater_London. It's very interesting that some are now trying to create new policy that local media coverage doesnt count "beacuse it isnt reliable journalism". That is an entirely subjective comment, and if you want to start judging the "reliability" of The Sun and other national media you will quickly get into quagmire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.208.251 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP above fails to mention that the councillors in the categories above achieved notability either by being a leadre of teh council or in national politics at a later date. To take Category:Councillors in Liverpool as an example: Joe Anderson (politician), an unreferenced artcile about the current labour group leader, currently prodded, Bessie Braddock - once a local councillor, famous as a Labour MP, Mary Bamber, suffragist, trade unionist, leading figure in the early twentieth century labour movemnet, etc. These people are not in the list becasue they are councillors. They are (mostly) notable people who happened to be once Liverpool councillors. Try reading and understanding Mkativerata's excellent commentary above. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did the same research I did... There's three people in the Liverpool category who are basically there for being councillors and nothing else, plus another three or so who're there for being councillors and involved with Militant in the eighties. Leaving the Militants aside, we're looking at Mike Storey, Joe Anderson (politician) & Warren Bradley (politician); it's a bit confusing to say Wikipedia definitively "accepts" these, as there has never been a deletion discussion for any of the three, and so no express consensus either way. Many articles are retained simply because no-one's found them yet, after all - if we had an approval system before they were posted, we wouldn't have this sort of debate! Shimgray | talk | 11:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:OUTCOMES, and excellent discussion per Mkativerata. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as with long-standing precedent on otherwise non-notable or marginally-notable parliamentary candidates; we can always resurrect the article in the event he wins! Shimgray | talk | 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per others. Perhaps a useful search term, but apart from that is not notable. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Whether I should say this or not I don't know, but it's just an observation so here goes. As the seat has been in the hands of the Labour Party since 1935 the chances of this guy being elected as am MP are slim, so unless he's done something else notable other than being selected as the area's Lib Dem candidate then it seems pretty pointless to have an article about him. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment --If he is elected, we will need the article. If not, it should be deleted after the election. I think the consensus is that local councillors (even cabinet members) are NN, unless for otehr reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe mods can resurrect deleted pages, which could happen should he win. There's no conceivable situation where Wright is notable now, but won't be after May 6. Wereon (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I reverted the deletion of this article because I believe the notability bar has been passed in this case. I of course agree that a lot of councillors and PPCs don't merit their own article however this guy has had a significant coverage in the local press, particularly in comparison to most, and that is enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, being a member of a council of a major metropolitan city. Opinions voiced so far about the quality of the articles in which he features are subjective opinion - the articles in question still constitute appropriate coverage from reliable sources, the only argument revolves around the depth to which articles in the Bristol Evening Post go. However the quality of the newspaper is not relevant to this discussion, as long as it itself passes the reliability test, which it clearly does. Put simply, if this councillor wasn't a notable figure on the regional political scene, the BEP wouldn't be writing about him at all, being as notoriously unwilling to give any column inches to the Lib Dems as they are. Chillysnow (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the BEP doesn't write about him at all. It merely rehashes press releases, quoting statements, that is not significant coverage in reliable sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles don't mention his shoe size or what he eats for breakfast, but they are all concerning important initiatives or projects he has created or is in charge of. This makes them entirely relevant and significant. Chillysnow (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and Redirect. A lot of local coverage, but none of it seems to be more than soundbites on behalf of a local party. If the article stays, it needs some serious rewriting. At the moment, it's little more than a campaign piece. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - On the basis that he is the main challenging candidate in the Bristol South constituency and we have kept others in a similar position I think its only fair to keep this article too. Also coverage seems to be much greater than usual. - Galloglass 10:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Trevor Ivory for Afd as the article clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN; Rachel Reeves who appears to have a high media profile probably squeezes through, but the article has a number of issues which I have tagged. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A passing quote in the Guardian is not "substantial coverage" –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the only source. The point is that the nomination, which talks of local press, is flawed. The nomination also seems improper in that the nomination tells us that it has been made after attempts to redirect the article have failed. AFD is not here for the winning of edit wars. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it? Wereon (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - see WP:GAME, WP:POINT and WP:DR. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That implies bad faith. What's the difference between an AfD, a dispute resolution regarding whether or not an article should exist? Seems to me they're the same thing. If there was no possibility of any dispute, it would have been speedied. Wereon (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mkativerata, above. I see nothing in this article, or coverage, to suggest subject is anything but an ordinary politician seeking election to higher office, and hence not terribly notable in his own right. RayTalk 03:58, 17 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 keep. Needs sources, though Tone 23:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Watkins

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

Delete. I am having difficulty locating non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications about this person. JBsupreme (talk) 19:59, 10 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth McKay

Kenneth McKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Master and the Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I am nominating both Kenneth McKay and his one book for deletion. Kenneth McKay's only reasonable assertion of notability is writing the book, The Master and the Messenger. That book's only assertion of notability is having been written by Kenneth McKay. Looking for reviews or such on Google yields almost nothing but Facbook pages, Wikipedia mirrors, and Amazon pages. When you exclude all of those ([8]) you're left with precisely 29 pages that are all trying to sell the book. No reliable coverage - not notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both biography and book page. Remarkably non-specific biography (Ayrshire, university, Spain, Italy all without detail) which flows straight into text to sell the book. The novel is described as "released on the web"; the publisher site is given over to this one novel. Only one of the "Quotes & Reviews" on his site could perhaps begin to establish a notability but it is one word and unreferenced. AllyD (talk) 20:22, 10 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 Speedy Deleted by Starblind. Already deleted previously, called it G4 I guess. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noob tube

AfDs for this article:
Noob tube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See this SPI. Page has been speedy deleted. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 20:42, 10 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 speedy delete and salt This is absurd. Enigmamsg 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lelo Sejean

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

Return of not-quite-notable U19 soccer player. Studerby (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Consider salt. Studerby (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per previous AfDs. Fails ATHLETE, fails GNG. I don't recall the original content but if substantially the same it should be CSD-G4 and SALT as above. I believe both previous AfDs were comprehensive enough. Another case of If and When.--ClubOranjeT 08:18, 13 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 keep. Tone 23:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Hassan

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

Delete. While tragic, this person is not notable beyond a single event. JBsupreme (talk) 18:51, 10 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) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyLot

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

No third-party references (other than an Alexa score) to support WP:WEB notability. Previously speedily-deleted.OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:48, 10 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 Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 no claim of significance. DES (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M0pe

M0pe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band that doesn't meet notability requirements, The article doesn't actually claim any, and even says "this is an ameture band" (Earlier CSD-A7 and PROD removed by IPs) -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:34, 10 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 keep. Nominator makes some reasonable points, but consensus is clearly against deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cerro del Quinceo

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

Long standing unreferenced tag. The article seems to stem from a mention on an internet page here. A search for information on the web produced other information placed on the article talk page, but no unambiguous evidence of notability. A request for references at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mexico#Cerro_del_Quinceo produced no results. The original AfD was withdrawn by the nominator because of evidence that the subject exists, however the subject seems to fail WP:GNG. RDBury (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If A7 applied to locations, it'd be a speedy delete. No particular significance outside Estadio Morelos, definitely not enough to warrant a separate article, per nominator. --Nutarama (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would think a 10,978 feet high mountain [10] would be automatically notable. This appears to be the major mountain next to Morelia and does seem a major geographical feature. Significant coverage does exist [11]. Like many major geographical feature, I would presume it played a significant part in the long history of Morelia which dates long before Spanish colonial times. Most refs are in Spanish so it can be difficult for English speakers to find them. --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The mountain in the references you found seems to be a different mountain. By my calculations the mountain next to the stadium is 8924 ft.--RDBury (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate does not work directly on Google books results: any spanish speakers here? DES (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be trivial mentions. My Spanish is limited but it looks like the first one just includes name in a list of local geographical features and the second one is about potable water supply.--RDBury (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to fail WP:N, there are only trivial mention in references, and half of those refer to it as "Pico de Quinceo", which brings in questions of WP:V do the references on the article support the article; are there two minor "de Quinceos" or one with two differetnt names? The lack of response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mexico go to support the complete lack of nobility for this hill. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. "Cerro [del] Quinceo" (Quinceo "hill"), "Pico [de] Quinceo" (Quinceo peak) and just plain "Quinceo" (unless it refers to the stadium or the part of the city that is named after the mountain) is just the normal variation in referring to a mountain, and in most cases it's obvious that it's the same mountain. It's trivial to find "trivial" coverage of the mountain in lists of major geographical features. It would be extremely silly to delete an article on a huge inactive volcano right next to a city of 600,000, just because we don't speak Spanish and the Mexico project is dead. (6 messages over the last 12 months, most of them not from project members.) I have no interest in Mexico or geography and have somewhat deletionist leanings, but this is just plain stupid.
But the article probably needs renaming to either Cerror Quinceo or just plain Quinceo, since "Cerro del Quinceo", while plausible and probably also correct, seems to be rarely used outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Hans Adler 13:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per arguments above. ZachG (Talk) 17:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is clear. Everyking (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion nominations like this, and the "me too" comments that they attract, make me despair. Do we really have people supposedly helping to write this encyclopedia who have such a lack of knowledge of what an encyclopedia is? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable geographic feature in Mexico. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 02:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as Nom: There apparently are no criteria for the inclusion of mountains but I would think that an absolute minimum would be a reliable source giving latitude, longitude and height above sea level so there is no confusion as to which mountain is the subject. None of the references produced so far seem to have this information. One of the main arguments for inclusion is that the mountain seems very tall. But, as I mentioned in the talk page, Mexico is a very mountainous country and this one doesn't merit inclusion in Mountain peaks of Mexico. If there is a rule that every peak over 2500 meters is automatically notable then this qualifies, but I haven't seen a rule like that. Another argument is to produce a Google hit in Spanish with no translation. I don't have anything against using foreign language sources but it seems to me that to use a reference when you are unable to read it is irresponsible. Finally, the references that were added to the page come from the local board of tourism. Local sources can be used to verify information, but they do not establish notability.--RDBury (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing earlier discussions in which there was a clear consensus that maps are perfectly sufficient reliable sources for geographical features. But this was long ago and I don't know where to look for it. In this case we don't have an appropriate map. (Google Maps doesn't seem to have mountain data for Mexico.) But I have no doubt that such maps exist.
The important thing about the height is of course not the absolute height. Otherwise every little hill (or hole) in the Himalayans would be notable. The important thing is that this inactive volcano (=> plenty of fertile earth and interest by geologists) is the highest elevation (2,787 m) in Morelia (1,921), a city of 600,000, and surmounts the populated part of the city by 860 m. If people think about the landscape around Morelia they naturally think about the Quinceo as one of the first things. You can see this on the web. E.g. here [13], where a hiker mentions that Quinceo is not on a specific map. But here is a better example [14]: It describes the village that existed before Morelia. Naturally it starts with the landscape, and the second paragraph starts: "Towering Quinceo, its peak immersed among the clouds, is the backdrop to this landscape." It's abundantly clear from all these sources (whether reliable or not) that there is only ont Quinceo mountain in the neighbourhood of Morelia. (There are also other things named after the mountain, including a formation called Las Tetillas de Quinceo which is unlikely to be confused with the main mountain itself.)
But I am not sure why I am spending so much time on this mountain that I am never going to see...Hans Adler 09:37, 14 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) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Asia: Premieres in Future

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

This appears to be a list of various Disney movies that will appear on Disney Channel Asia sometime in the future. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTDIR. –Grondemar 17:33, 10 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) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Clarke Singer

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

Notability does not appear to have been established. EuroPride (talk) 17:21, 10 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. Tone 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soni (term of endearment)

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

non notable dictionary definition - contested prod noq (talk) 17:17, 10 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) 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Balton

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

Fails WP:NOT and WP:BIO Information on the article links to minor positions in the Television field. The article in question also has information regarding his failed attempt at running for his local school board in his region. I'm pretty sure this is not notable, but on the talk page an anonymous user is pretty sure that this meets the notability guidelines. areusche (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteNon-notable. College student with TV/media credits at the high school and college level. Failed candidate for local school board. Maybe in a few years his career will take off and he will then be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. He is not now. (As per Areusche there is extensive discussion at the talk page which should be reviewed by the closing administrator.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 13 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. Tone 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon High (film)

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

Fails WP:NFF. Not even cast, much less begun filming. WP:CRYSTAL. —Kww(talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Disney announced seven days ago their intention to add "six new movies and three series to air over the next two years", Avalon High being one of those six new films. This announcement is by no means sufficient to confer upon the subject enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. For now, delete per WP:NFF because the film has not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography and should not have its own article until such a time that this can be confirmed. No prejudice towards recreation should the film one day meet the necessary notability requirements. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree on Den Brother being added. No release date, no cast, no filming has started. Can't say I agree with Phineas and Ferb: Across the Second Dimension being lumped in, because it does have a cast and it does have a specific release date. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article could say the release date is tomorrow but that's irrelevant because Disney did not make this announcement to Wikipedia. What's relevant is that reliable sources (Hollywood Reporter, Variety, WorldScreen and others) report only that the projects have been announced. There is no confirmation of production commencement nor release date, whatever's in the article is unverified and likely incorrect. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to be so hostile about it. You asked for my opinion on my talk page and I gave it. Simply saying "the date isn't real" would have been fine. I was assuming good faith on the Phineas and Ferb: Across the Second Dimension editor who added in the release date, but if you are certain that it is a made up date, then I'll give my delete vote towards it. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and opened the AfD for Den Brother. Feel free to go and cast your vote for it there. I posted a note on the talk page of the Phineas and Ferb movie asking for sources. If I don't see any in a day or so, I will list that one for deletion too. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 04:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment about the other two films was not meant to be hostile. The road to hell being paved with good intentions, I do see how it could be construed that way and I apologize for not wording myself more carefully and giving you the impression that I criticized you for expressing your opinion after I asked for it. Anyways, your point is taken and I see that a separate AfD now exists. We'll deal with it in that manner. Thanks for your input! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 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 keep. The keep side is well argued. WP:CRYSTAL is only there as a warning against speculative articles on future events; however, the sources are sufficient to fulfill WP:GNG, which makes it notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Investment Wholesale Bank

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

Delete, non-notable bank./ Speedy declined. No references doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. If significant coverage can be found I am not objectionable to another experienced editor to close AFD with my blessing Switch to keep Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 28 hits over 13 years, with a lot of repeats/press releases? I wouldn't consider that substantial.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only two articles in that search are from the late 1990s, and the search includes coverage in the Guardian, Evening Standard and the trade journal Third Sector. Warrah (talk) 16:18, 12 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) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanmac

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

I have been unable to find any reliable source references mentioning this product. The article was PRODed, but the PROD was removed, so I am taking it to AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:27, 10 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 no consensus. I don't see there is agreement on whether the sources are sufficiently substantial, which is the key issue, & I don;t think further debate will get us to a consensus. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Muhammad

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

Not a notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Leaning towards "delete". Ruby Muhammad's main claim to noatbility is her claims of advanced age, the accuracy or otherwise of which have been the subject of humungous discussions at Talk:Ruby Muhammad. However, longevity (or claims of longevity) are not evidence of notability, so the relevant test in WP:GNG.
    So far, I see only one source which comes close to be useful in a GNG assessment: "Mother Muhammad Goes Mobile", in The Sacramento Observer. That's not enough to meet GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In reality there are multiple, multiple sources that mention Ms. Muhammad. However, it is not in my best interests to quote those that fail to give an accurate assessment of how old she might be. As discussed, even as the "Ruby Muhammad" personality is being promoted in plays such as this:
    http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/17/2542081/112-year-old-plans-to-give-a-performance.html?pageNum=1&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
    While we see that even her family has her listed as born in 1906 on her family tree (as discussed before). The bottom line: the issue of "notability" and the issue of whether her age is true or false are two independent issues. If she is notable, it is because of PUBLICITY.Ryoung122 11:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the article is for her was for her age. When the article was made, everyone thought that Mrs. Muhammad was a supercentenarian. It turns that she really is only 102 years old. Deleting it is a good idea. Other debunked original supercentenarians that are only known for their age should be deleted as well. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, I think you are missing the point. Did we delete the article of Milli Vanilli when it turned out they were frauds? While anyone who wants to promote the truth of how long humans really live, wouldn't want to see this case go uncontested, it is also true that, sometimes, it appears that every claim that is investigated is validated (when in reality, a huge number of cases turn out to be false). In the same way that crime makes cops needed, so false cases make age verification important. For these reasons, I believe this case should be kept.
    I would also note that this case has been featured in the news many times since her obstensible 106th birthday in 2003, so it is not a "one event" case. We have seen her news stories in places across the USA, most recently in Utah. And her assertion that she wants to become the "world's oldest person" suggests that the Ruby Muhammad storyline will continue/Ryoung122 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She probably was only born in 1906/7 but that dosen't mean that we have to delete the article. Imagine how upset the Nation of Islam will be if you do this.Plyjacks (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so being the mother of the nation of islam isnt considered notable? Longevitydude (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is a false assertion to say that longevity (or claims of longevity) cannot be evidence of notability. It is clear that many, many cases of extreme longevity are covered in the media, and some of these persons become famous enough to warrant their own article.
    In this case, it doesn't matter if the age claim is true or false; it matters that the case is getting a lot of press mention. Also, as the "Mother of the Nation of Islam" this case is one of those hybrid cases where she was not quite known before old age, but her claim to fame is in a reinforcing feedback loop, whereby some view it remarkable that she is OLD AND KNOWN FOR SOMETHING. However, it is also clear that the older she gets, the more famous she gets. Just how old she is, is irrelevant: what matters is that there is substantial coverage in multiple sources (although it could be argued that most of the sources are LOCAL...the Sacramento Bee, in particular).Ryoung122 10:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we KEEP the article. Even if she was born in 1906/7 or not we should keep it here. Plyjacks (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a lot of verbose irrelevancy in this discussion. The position is simple: it doesn't matter whether Ms Muhammad is 5 years old or 105, or whether she claims to be six or sixteen or sixty years old. Nor does it matter that editors talk of "substantial coverage in multiple sources": let's see the links, and see how substantial it is. So far all we have is a few little pieces of trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The above comment is UNsigned. Aside from that, it's clear there are a LOT of links, including ones already on the page.Ryoung122 05:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Wikipedia is supposed to reflect OUTSIDE sources, not one's own personal opinion. It's clear that the media have decided that Ruby is notable, whatever age she may be. Coverage has been continuing since at least 2003 and increased in both saturation (more outlets) and depth in recent years. One can easily run a search on Google to find even more links than the ones here. Aside from that, it is FALSE to say that "it doesn't matter whether Ms Muhammad is 5 years old or 105." The media, and the public, decided that extreme longevity is notable when a person becomes a living symbol, a connection with the past...for example see the article on Henry Allingham. Had he died at 89, he would not have been notable.
    Now, that doesn't mean that everyone who is 113 will achieve notability...it does mean, however, that extreme age can be a factor in someone achieving notability. To not acknowledge that FACT is to pushing POV bias, which is contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy and the policy that Wikipedia should reflect outside sources, not the editor's personal biases.Ryoung122 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. Robert, this is nothing to do with anyone's POV, nor is it about link-counting. The test in WP:GNG is "substantial coverage in multiple sources", and so far there is no evidence of that. Your comment that "the media have decided that Ruby is notable" is irrelevant; that's an assertion, but we need evidence.
    You also miss the point about her age: it's irrelevant to our assessment here, because age (or lack of, or clams of) are not evidence of notability per the guideline WP:GNG, which is broadly neutral on why someone is notable. Notability is assessed per WP:GNG against "substantial coverage in multiple sources", and that applies whether the person is notable for climbing mountains, being very old, very fat, very stupid, having spent their life masquerading as a unicorn or as a member of Romanov family, or whatever. Even if RM was verifiably 371 years old, she still wouldn't be notable per WP:GNG unless she was the subject of "substantial coverage in multiple sources". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the subject is not as old as she claims to be, then her claim to notability would seem to be her role in the Nation of Islam. Unfortunately, hardly any information has been provided about that, nor have I been able to find sources that explain it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether she is really 103 or 113, she has had coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources as being a well known figure within her religious movement, and as someone thought, correctly or not , to have been born in the 19th century. The continued significant coverage in newspapers satisfies WP:N, regardless of its truth in the eyes of some independent researchers. We determine whether someone is noted, not whether all claims about them which are noted are in fact true. I absolutely do not agree that originaal research in census records negate newspaper coverage over many years. See continuing significant coverage in 2003, 2006, 2008(noted above), 2009, 2010. Edison (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is information disputing Ruby's age posted on other sites, for example:

http://www.grg.org/CalmentFraud.html

To me, though, the issue about keep or delete isn't about her age; it's whether she is notable as the "Mother of the Nation of Islam". We see her in popular culture. For example:

http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/mnames-nf/Muhammad+Ruby

By the way, her real name is Ruby Pittman, and even her family tree, made by her family, lists her as born in 1906. Therefore, I see "Ruby Muhammad" as a fictional character, not a real person. Note, for example:

http://www.rubymuhammad.com/home

It is clear that this is a fundraising vehicle for the Nation of Islam, as well as a promoter of "values" (much the same way material on, say, Seventh-Day Adventists promote a lifestyle). It's clear that the real issue about Ruby is NOT her age. In fact, the Ruby Muhammad.com website states:

"Muhammad joined the Nation in 1946 and was named Mother of the Nation of Islam in 1986 by Minister Louis Farrakhan, and has an international following of admiration by those in the Nation of Islam."

"In March 2007, she ostensibly turned 110, though this has not been documented."

So it seems that age, if anything, is being used to promote a "lifestyle"...the nation of Islam as a "healthy lifestyle". To those of faith, documented proof is not something they worry about. Faith and religion operate in a different world than scientific proof and documentation.76.17.118.157 (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to 76.17.118.157, I am not sure that being listed on Deadoraliveinfo.com is really a reference in popular culture. All that site says is that Ruby Muhammad is alive, is in the field of religion, and is known as the Mother of the Nation of Islam, and then cites Wikipedia with regard to the dispute over her age. For her to be mentioned in popular culture, I would be looking to references to her in movies, television shows, songs, etc. -- something along the lines of the reference to Louis Farrakhan in the song "Bring the Noise". I don't know what 76.17.118.157 means by referring to Ruby Muhammad as a fictional character -- that is the religiously adopted name of Ruby Pittman, and she is not playing a character. But with regard to her religious activities, if she was named "Mother of the Nation of Islam" 40 years after joining the religion, I would expect to see some description somewhere of what she was doing on behalf of the NoI during those 40 years that resulted in her receiving such a title. I can't find any sources that discuss that, much less reliable ones. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources presented by Edison initially swayed me to think keep. However, the reliability of the sources appears variable: Sacramento Bee is fine, but a lot of the rest seems to be quite local coverage in low circulation publications that generally appear to be human interest puff pieces. That some of these sources seem to unquestionably report her birth year as 1897 suggests they are not strong on reliability and fact-checking (which WP:RS requires). This article for example cannot possible be considered a reliable source; it's essentially an ad. Overall I'm not convinced the sources amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. But happy to change my mind if someone can sway me. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mkativerata. I commented as week ago on the apparent lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and since then there is no sign of anything else to sway the balance. It's also a pity that so many contributors have chosen to use this AFD to discuss issues which have no bearing on the deletion decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100228/LIVING/702289935
just because her age is debunked doesn't mean shes not still notable for being the mother of the nation of islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary --Longevitydude (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Omaha World Herald article is not substantial, so it does not establish notability per WP:GNG, and the fact that it's wrong about her age does suggest that it is a reliable source. Being "Mother of the Nation of Islam" does not of itself nmake her notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rubymuhammad.com/home

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79648564.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700011541/112-year-old-Mother-Ruby-Muhammad-plans-to-sing-read-poetry-on-stage.html

Longevitydude (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Deseret News article is an exact copy of the Sacramento Bee article. I duuno which is a prerint of which. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that first link was published in febuary and that second link was published in march, but they are both accurate and reliable. Longevitydude (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same article, and there is plenty of evidence to question their accuracy and reliability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what evidence? Longevitydude (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems to be a three-way argument. The recent articles on Ruby Muhammad are neither accurate nor reliable in regards to her age quoted, in actuality. However, they come from sources (such as the Omaha World-Herald) which are generally considered reliable. I thought BHG said that her age didn't matter? If that's that case, let's look at the FACTS. This claim has been covered in the press for 7+ years (and so it is not a "one-event" mention); it has been covered in multiple "reliable" sources that include mentions outside the Sacramento area (and so this is not simply "local" coverage); the articles have been ABOUT Ruby Muhammad, and not simply a trivial mention. A "trivial" mention is, for example, a person being quoted in a story as an "eyewitness." In these cases, the articles are ABOUT Ms. Muhammad. Therefore, she IS covered in multiple sources and so this article SHOULD pass Wikipedia standards on notability. I'd also note that this article has existed for more than three years, a sign that, in general, most visitors didn't even consider a deletion.Ryoung122 09:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, the fact is that in the 11 days that this AFD has been open, there have been repeated calls for evidence that she meets the notability tests in WP:GNG. You continue to assert that she meets GNG, but repeatedly fail to provide evidence.
The only sign do far of substantial coverage is : Deseret News article and Sacramento Bee article. However, the two articles are identical, so we really have only one article.
So where is the rest of the substantial coverage? Let's see some evidence rather than repeated assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think EDISON did a good job of quoting multiple, multiple sources. Granted, most of the coverage, until recently, has been:
A. the Sacramento Bee newspaper
B. materials put out by opportunists ("the Scooter store")
C. material from the Nation of Islam
However, in general, we find when we run the Google test for "Ruby+Muhammad" that we get
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,670 for "Ruby Muhammad". (0.17 seconds)
more than 7,000 hits, including several photos. We also find that she has been picked up into the popular mainstream, being featured in deathpools and websites such as "deadoralive". Sites such as these only list "notable" persons, so this is evidence of notability in the pop culture.
Ryoung122 10:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates? What are you talking about, their not all duplicates and their not all on the same date either, so what are you talking about? Longevitydude (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Try actually reading what I posted. I cited five sources from five separate years. They are not "one source" as has been misstated. They are not duplicates. The standard of notability is not "whether she is really 113 years old" versus a "mere" 103, or whether she is "really an influential religious leader" as opposed "merely" to an elderly lady called "The Mother of Islam" by religious leaders. WP:N just requires significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, which has been presented. It is inappropriate and unconvincing to argue that the newspapers are all "unreliable" because they state she was born 10 years before the original research of Wikipedia editors and others suggests. We judge by what is cited, not by "truth" based on original research in census records. There are more sources at Google News archive. Edison (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Though I agree that this article should be kept, I disagree with the false assertion that the debunking of Ruby Muhammad's age is "original" research. Her age has been debunked in published sources, such as:

http://www.amazon.com/AFRICAN-AMERICAN-LONGEVITY-ADVANTAGE-Comparison-Supercentenarian/dp/3639105702/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268516484&sr=1-1

http://www.grg.org/CalmentFraud.html

However, what we are discussing today is NOT whether she is born in 1897 (as publicly claimed), 1906 (as privately claimed), or 1907 (as determined by researchers). What we are discussing today is whether there has been coverage in multiple, independent sources...which, by the way, are NOT limited to newspaper accounts. The answer is YES. In addition, given that her alleged 113th birthday is just next week, we can all expect even more coverage to continue.Ryoung122 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • Comment. Aside from the fact that that is A PUBLISHED BOOK, not a university Masters's thesis (even though it is based on one), I find it incredulous that Wikipedia would generally discount a Masters's thesis while giving "credit" to news. By the way, that's NOT what that actually says. Reading it, it's clear it is a much-debated and unresolved issue. Additionally, my thesis won a national award, so even if Masters' theses in general are not peer-reviewed, this one was.Ryoung122 19:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ruby Muhammad is mentioned in several books and hundreds of sites on the web. Here are some:

Ruby Muhammad in books: Mama Nikki's Guide for Parents: "How to Raise a Healthy Sane Child" by Alice "Nikki" Johnson-Muhammad (Paperback - 30 Oct 2006) The Future of Us All: Race and Neighborhood Politics in New York City (The anthropology of contemporary issues) by Roger Sanjek (Paperback - 24 Feb 2000)

Ruby Muhammad on the web: Visited the White House three times and won a lifetime achievement award http://www.sacdhhs.com/CMS/download/pdfs/HHS/Mother-Ruby-Muhammad.pdf Addresses community groups http://www.sacandco.net/story.aspx?storyid=74572&catid=299 her stories turn up in all sorts of bulletins http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/powerof50/articles/obama_awards_wwii-era.html the mother of sacramento http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/19768/The_Mother_of_Sacramento reading poetry http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/17/2542081/112-year-old-plans-to-give-a-performance.html astrology http://www.astrotheme.fr/portraits/2Lzm7KAQBFvR.htm politics http://brothermustafaa.com/Noi_Ultimate_list.htm race and politics http://www.finalcall.com/national/believers03-05-2002.htm racial politics http://www.100yearsproject.org/About_Film.html Omaha http://www.omaha.com/article/20100228/LIVING/702289935/-1/living poetry http://gotpoetry.com/News/print/sid=49815.html racial problems in new york http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/12/nyregion/brooklyn-clash-spurred-queens-to-end-boycott.html?pagewanted=1 women of color http://events.linkedin.com/2010-annual-Sacramento-Community-Women/pub/231923 music http://www.lo-cal.com/bands/suzannebrooksthejazzgeneration/ In Australia with references http://www.thinkingaustralia.com/thinking_australia/wikipedia/default.php?title=Ruby_Muhammad womens events http://www.womensradio.com/articles/2010-Annual-Sacramento-Community-Women-Of-Color-Day-Diversity-Event,-Symbols-in-Silver/4429.html history http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Ruby_Muhammad rosa parks day http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/2446/t/4949/p/d/donordigital/events/public/event.sjs?dekey=49&key=18333 60.229.6.186 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Chris Amos[reply]

those are perfectly reliable sources, besides i doubt you can come up with arguments over all the sources. Longevitydude (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there actually are reliable sources. Longevitydude (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment These are certainly not "self published," but are from a respected newspaper. This one article should not have a higher standard as to "reliable sources" than for all other articles. Your disagreeing with a source does not make it not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Edison (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have been the subject of enough significant coverage to justify a Wikipedia biography. That's the only thing that matters here (not how old she actually is), and the reliable sources provided elsewhere in this AFD seem to be (just about) enough to satisfy it. Robofish (talk) 23:48, 14 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) 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships

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

Non-Notable student debating competition - on a Google search top 2 hits are WP. No GNews hits, one minor Google Books hit, no Google Scholar hits. Seems that there is not much coverage outside specialist debate sites and blogs; does not seem to have it's own website. Not sure that the page meets WP:V as all the post 2002 information is un-sourced and given the lack of third party coverage also think it fails WP:GNG along with WP:ORG and WP:CLUB guidelines. Codf1977 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - well, there are a couple of hits in Google new archives. Here's one that says they are "One of the world's largest debating tournaments, the Australs are second only in size to the World Universities Debating Championship". Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the claim of losts - if you do a google.com.au lookup for "easters debating tournament" (with the quotes) - you get 4 hits - two from Macquarie University Debating Society, one from a live journal and the last from a site that looks like it scraps WP content judging by the "Note: Some content may be licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License" message at the bottom Codf1977 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I'm pretty sure your use of terminology is getting in the way of your searches. a search of Easters "debating tournament" comes up with far more hits: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=easters+%22debating+tournament%22&start=270&sa=N or http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Easter+%22novice+debaters%22&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= comes up with 64. Using quotes in this case is just splitting up hundreds (possibly thousands) of website hits because of inconsistent use of vocab (the tournament has no real consistent name, and is mostly referred to as "Easters" which is obviously problematic for a google search with quotes, which is why my initial one doesn't use one). I don't have time to search over the internet right now, indeed it may not even be on the internet. But my gut feeling is a national competition with over 400 participants each year (not including organisers or adjudicators) is probably notable, and if effort is put in sources will invariably be found... I tried to look at the Monash debating website to grab some newspaper links I remembered seeing, but (as chance would have it) it seems to be down right now. There's certainly enough doubt that this should be kept and given time to improve at any rate.JJJ999 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my terminology was trying to filter out the 'noise' - to find sources that cover the event. Most of the page hits on the above searches are from Uni debate clubs or Uni's themselves; nothing that you could say is independent and nothing significant. There is a big difference from being probably notable to actually being notable - an event may want to be notable, but if know one outside the event is writing or talking about it, it fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely showing that your proof of it's lack of notability is not useful. Even the 2 searches above I used fail because they limit the search to people who refer to it as a "debating tournament" rather than say a "debating Intervarsity" or "debating IV" or "debating weekend" or "Easters IV" or "Easters tournament" or maybe (as it is actually refered to) "Easters" and then the word "debating" somewhere on the page. There is no proof being presented one way or the other, and no effort has been made by anyone with time to really explore the issue. Based on having some knowledge of the event, I think it probably is notable and has some coverage somewhere (not that it necessarily needs to in order to be notable under wikipedia guidelines). With that in mind, it should be kept, and effort made to improve it, since the premise of the opening post (that there is nothing on google) is wrong.JJJ999 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree that he premise of nom is wrong. It seems to me that if you have to hunt for coverage in the way you are proposing; ie by changing the search term to "Easters tournament" (neither of those words appears in the article title) then you are admitting that finding "verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention by the world at large, to support a claim of notability." (from WP:NRVE) is going to be hard if not impossible and that being the case it fails the WP:GNG. The easiest way to deal with this is to find the coverage rather than debate (no pun intended) how to find it. Codf1977 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an argument for changing the name of the title. I explained why "Easters tournament (which does return quite a few ghits- not the be all or end all btw) is a misleading measureJJJ999 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that sources can be found to establish the notability of the Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships (or any other name that may be more appropriate) I would not have a problem with moving the article to the Article Incubator, however as far as I can see what coverage does exist is limited to specialist debate sites and blogs and significant independent coverage of the tournament may just not exist. Codf1977 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well gee, thanks for your permission. What we have here is an article which nobody has made a real effort to find sources on (both of us included), about an event that is of sufficient size that you would imagine sources to exist, and which no other editors on this discussion have expressed a firm opinion. In that light, the answer is not to send it to editing hell, but to leave it for the natural process, perhaps tag it so sources are added, and come back a year from now and see where things stand (perhaps wait for more opinions). You can't start an AfD based on a faulty search as your only evidence it should be deleted, and then when that search is proven unhelpful to turn around and say "prove it's notable then, or have it deleted". Wikipedia doesn't work that way. I don't have time to go searching right now, and nobody else is paying attention to this AfD, so it seems clear the solution is to just tag it (maybe) and let organic change happen.JJJ999 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misrepresent the discussion. At least one other editor firmly believes this article should be deleted (me). I have also searched for, and found zero, reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misrepresent me either - I have made an effort to find sources. It is either notable or not and if independent reliable sources can't be found to support it's notability then it should be deleted. As for my suggestion to move the article to the Article Incubator it was a good faith suggestion to help an article that (IMO) does not currently meet the polices of WP, I am sorry you did not take it that way. Codf1977 (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I assumed that your 1 line opinion, based on a faulty search, was no longer germane... apparently you've seen some sort of evidence since then which shows no notability... please, share it with us... because a quick glance across some of the searches I highlighted show it is covered by various prestigious universities in their news bulletins... if this were some crappy local thing run by a handful of people in their spare time, I don't think they'd mention it. But again, I don't have time to go digging into all this.JJJ999 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
University-published news bulletins do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. Now I can't conclusively prove a negative (ie I can't prove there is no notability or that no sources exist). But I can't find any news coverage, any books, any periodicals, etc. No-one else can either. In light of that, the article fails fundamental wikipedia policies (WP:N, WP:V) and must be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure you've looked, given your initial post wasn't even using the correct google searches. I don't see what has changed since then. You've searched "easters" and "debating" in all those things? I doubt it. Nor have I to be fair, but to say "nobody has time to find evidence, it must be deleted" is simply false, and your suggestion university newsletters and bulletins are not reliable or useful sources is simply false.121.45.215.175 (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think you are getting a little silly - there are no correct or incorrect google searches - I looked in Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar for "Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships" trying to find sources showing that it is notable, you recommended other search terms I looked at them, however they (as explained at the time) are from sources that are not independent. It should not need me to explain the reason why "university newsletters and bulletins" are not reliable sources for demonstrating notability however I will - A University or Debate Club who sends (or has sent) a team to the event, can not be seen to be impartial in judging the importance of the Championships. It is also not the case that anyone is saying "nobody has time to find evidence, it must be deleted" - what is the WP norm is that if after the attention of a AfD the notability of a subject can't be established by independent reliable sources it grounds for a article to be deleted, or moved to the Article Incubator.Codf1977 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Nobody has time, out of the 3 people casually checking this AfD, and the only reason I even know it's been nominated is because you told me the week I happened to be checking my account. I actually have done almost no editing on this page, and I think those who have probably would mount a decent defense of it. Let's give them that time. 2) Nothing is impartial in that sense, but Universities are not the clowns you think they are, and they don't just publish any of crap their clubs do. In fact the Harvard University paper is incredibly famous and respected.JJJ999 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) this is not an attack requiring a defence. If you or anyone can provide significant independent coverage of the event, I will gladly withdraw the nom (I have done it before - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maryum Jameelah (3rd_nomination)).
2) I do not think "Universities are clowns", however they make use of PR to make themselves look good - like all businesses - that is why they can not be used as a gauge of how notable the event is. Codf1977 (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Mkativerata, who I think says it best: "A search for sources indicates no significant coverage outside the very narrow world of university student debating." Thus, neither notable nor verifiable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 10 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 merge to The Magnificent Seven . The consensus seems to be to merge, and, as a result of the discussion here, the nom agrees with that also DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo O'Reilly

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. Does not meet WP:N. Crusio (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do You mean "don't go anywhere"? They're absolutely accessible for everyone. Anyone, who wants, can easily check them. Please, describe Your opinion more clearly. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a notable character who has received quite a bit of 3rd-party coverage in reliable sources. Surely this can at least be merged with other characters from the same film? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely No. For instance, Vin and Chico hasn't such popularity in russian-speaking world like O'Reilly and Britt. It's not a characters. It's a pillars of american cinema. I will reply with his words: "Be proud of him!". Don't waste your national heritage. Never thought that russian can ever persuade americans to save american characters, virtually their imperishable property, from guess "what?" - from deletion! Sounds like delirium. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Next time, when somebody nominate Elvis for deletion (under the same reasons as mentioned above) - don't tell me about it cause I will die from laughter. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Magnificent Seven. No notability independent of the subject. Slivers of worthwhile production info can be merged to the film article. --EEMIV (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Widely known character, present in several sequels and influential in many other Westerns and other dramatic fiction. A significant role in the career of a highly notable actor. Existing refs are more than sufficient to establish notability. The article could use improvement, but there is no reason to delete it. DES (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or Merge. Widely known character which has received good coverage in reliable sources. I would suggest having a single big article on all the seven characters of the Magnificent Seven. With the quality of sources available in Gbooks and the Russian language sources SerdechnyG has added, a single article has a good chance of making it to GA or FA status. And it would be far more convenient to have them all in a single article.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The characters have appeared in a lot of sequels and (i think) some print tie-ins as well. So it would better to have a separate article for the characters rather than putting them all in the first film's article. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a potential topic that should be researched further. However, The Magnificent Seven is very sparse, so if there is not that much about this character, we should be able to put together a strong "Cast" or "Characters" section at the film article. If we can write about three, four, or more paragraphs about the character alone (with secondary sources, not the film), then a stand-alone article could work. Erik (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main film article. I don't see the notability inherent in a google search for books on the Magnificent Seven. Alastairward (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there a multiple films a separate "characters in..." article would seem appropriate if there is a merge.
DESiegel, it depends on the amount of material available. While cited, the depiction, production and critical reaction sections are sparse and could well be trimmed. Alastairward (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As the nom, I change my vote from delete to merge, as suggested by Erik. There is obviously not enough material for a stand-alone article on this character. --Crusio (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What rule or regulation states that such content "is obviously not enough"? Or maybe it's your own thoughts? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no rules about what is enough or not. Yes, this is my very considered own opinion. And if you care to read the comments above, you will see that I am not alone in thinking this. --Crusio (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As well as I. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 21:29, 17 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 keep. Tone 23:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Adams (Character)

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. Does not meet WP:N. Crusio (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put the three (four, including the template discussion) together. It'll be much more easy to discuss. Current situation is a little bit complicated. To copy messages in a four different threads?? Unwise. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it would be too large if we merge them. We must look forward and understand that not only russians and americans would see this article (in case if we merge them all). Imagine how big it will be, if spaniards, germans, japaneese and others will write about the reception of different characters in their countries. About books, songs, pictures, contemporary art products related or dedicated to them. We must act regarding to different rate of popularity of each of these characters, which is variable for different character in different countries (look above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo O'Reilly discussion) -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As they stand, these articles are just loose collections of trivia. Most of that can be cut or condensed (a lot of it is repetitive). Once that is done, only small stubs would be left. Merging into one article (and why should that not simply be the article on the movie, which could use some fleshing out) really makes sense. --Crusio (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet. But do you really know, how they will look like after a year of edits? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you forgot about `Character analysis`. It can't be cnosidered as trivia. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section most certainly can be considered trivia. "Smith says Chris is evil". "Jones says Chris is not as bad as Calvera". That's trivial. If you'd like to see what a proper encyclopedic entry would look like, see here. Of course, even that re-written section is just some superficial pop-psychology. Don't these books give any more information that just these trivial mentions of the character? --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot a little detail, if we note that this Smith is Doctor of arts, Columbia University professor, and there is an article in Wikipedia about him and his studies, it'll be not so trivial as you say. But after you deleted their scientifical titles, of course, their opinion is not more significant than anonymous comments somewhere in the Web. Isn't it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually it's really not so important that all these people have professor titles. But, during a deletion discussion, which, by the way, was started by Crusio, his reverts looks like deleting the notalibility proofs. For example, if someone named Howard Hughes had described a subject of the article in his books - it means not more important than such description by anonymous user anywhere in the Web. But, if we add that this Howard Hughes is a Professor of Cinema in The San Francisco State University - this little addition changing a notability and reliance of this source in a critical way. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I am not removing "notability proofs". Whether Hughes and others are professors or not is really not very important. Some comment somewhere on the web, by a professor or not, is not acceptable as a reliable source. What makes the references you added go some way towards establishing notability is the fact that these books were published by (sometimes very) reputable publishers. What makes me say "some way" and not conclude that notability has been established beyond doubt is that it still looks to me like the mention of these characters in those books are essentially only in-passing, not in-depth analyses. --Crusio (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the references you added go some way towards establishing notability is the fact that these books were published by (sometimes very) reputable publishers.
Who says? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks to you like the mention of these characters in those books are essentially only in-passing, not in-depth analyses?

  • Yes, those links are very clear: with the exception of The Cowboy Way, these are all in-passing mentions, nothing in-depth. And The Cowboy Way presents a whole chapter on The Magnificent Seven as a movie and describes and interprets the plot. It is not a discussion of Chris (or any of the other characters for that matter). This information can easily be merged into The Magnificent Seven, or at most into an article entitled "Characters in The Magnificent Seven" or such, as proposed by Erik. --Crusio (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comments. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Wikipedia has load of articles about fictional characters, so clearly there cannot be an objection in principle to having articles on fictional characters. The film is extremely well known. There is no reason why the article cannot be developed to become a good article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a potential topic that should be researched further. However, The Magnificent Seven is very sparse, so if there is not that much about this character, we should be able to put together a strong "Cast" or "Characters" section at the film article. If we can write about three, four, or more paragraphs about the character alone (with secondary sources, not the film), then a stand-alone article could work. Erik (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination The article has cleaned up rather nicely and could be improved further along the lines of Calvera (Character). I therefore withdraw the nomination and suggest that we work towards Erik's suggestion of merging the articles on the different characters with the main movie article. --Crusio (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll think about it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:43, 17 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 keep. Tone 23:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvera (Character)

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. Does not meet WP:N. Crusio (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvera is a most "mercandizing-effective" character. It's a trademark, not a name. There are a lots of different products, produced under this brand. We should take it into account. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Wikipedia has load of articles about fictional characters, so clearly there cannot be an objection in principle to having articles on fictional characters. The film is extremely well known. There is no reason why the article cannot be developed to become a good article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a potential topic that should be researched further. However, The Magnificent Seven is very sparse, so if there is not that much about this character, we should be able to put together a strong "Cast" or "Characters" section at the film article. If we can write about three, four, or more paragraphs about the character alone (with secondary sources, not the film), then a stand-alone article could work. Erik (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather keep now and rework this character article (and the others) into prose. There are details to work out, but not in the course of this discussion. These characters transcend one film, so references will have to tell us if we can create a cohesive picture of the character across the films. There would be redundancy, to be sure, but if a reader wants to read about just the character, a stand-alone article can centralize such details. Discussion to merge should take place post-AFD so we can work out the details. Another possibility is Characters in The Magnificent Seven series or something of the like. It's just a little too complex to hammer out here. Erik (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the paucity of sources, such a merged "characters etc" article could work, I think. And it is not beyond the realm of AfD to discuss merging instead of outright deletion. --Crusio (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right; it is not beyond this realm. We are dealing with multiple articles here, though, and potentially a complex merge. My preference to keep now does not mean I would not be open to merging. It really depends on the vetting of the references. Unless these AFDs really turn around, I would recommend withdrawal and pursue post-AFD discussion at WT:FILM. We can work out a solution. Erik (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion spreads on all three articles (Chris Adams, Bernardo O'Reilly) or only on Calvera? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of them, which is why I referred to a "complex merge". There are sources that exist, but there may be some padding (particular with the "Further reading" sections). AFD is not the venue, IMO, because these characters are "known" and will be mentioned in coverage related to the film. So outright deletion isn't beneficial; at the very least, the character articles should be redirected to the film article. We just need to work on the existing references and possible references and write up prose. I think prose is easier to move around; bullet points look a bit trivial. Erik (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After this discussion ends and the articles would be kept - you are personally welcommed to replace anything you consider as trivial to the article discussion page or simply hide it with a hidden comments. Besides, what IMO stands for? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will keep up with these AFDs and work with other editors on the content and see about a merge. IMO means In My Opinion; just tempering my comment so it does not come off as an imperative. :) Erik (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I suppose, if their content would be expanded by un-trivial information, it would be needless to merge them. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually it's really not so important that all these people, who described the character, have professor titles. But, during a deletion discussion, which, by the way, was started by Crusio, his reverts looks like deleting the notalibility proofs. For example, if someone named Barry Keith Grant had described a subject of the article in his books - it means not more important than such description by anonymous user anywhere in the Web. But, if we add that this Barry Keith Grant is a Doctor of Arts, professor of Brock University - this little addition changing a notability and reliance of this source in a critical way. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination The article has cleaned up rather nicely. I therefore withdraw the nomination and suggest that we work towards Erik's suggestion of merging the articles on the different characters with the main movie article. --Crusio (talk) 19:50, 17 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 Speedy keep, nom withdrawn. No one is currently arguing for deletion. DES (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Django (character)

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

Non-notable fictional character, no sources establishing notability "out-of-universe". Does not meet WP:N. Prod removed with reason "No discussion since the template was posted. Sorry, but World doesn't share Your point." However, there still is no evidence of notability. Crusio (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According not to the article, but to Stephen Prince "Sam Peckinpah's The wild bunch" Published by: Cambridge University Press, 1999 - 228 p. ISBN 0521586062, 9780521586061 (P.152). It's not my original issue, thoughts, ideas, etc. Actually I've seen only one episode - 1966 movie. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the reference, but "Django" is really mentioned only in passing here. This hardly constitutes proof of notability for the character. An article on the series of movies would be more helpful, if sources can be found. --Crusio (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I had mentioned this source not to prove the notability of the subject, but to prove that he really appears in more than 30 movies, and it's not my fantasies. There's a lot of other sources in which he described in detail. So please don't distort our phrases. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
accepted. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarantino's cover is not significant?? Well... -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect that you wanted to link to a different "Tarantino"... And I don't really understand what you mean with the previous comment either, I'm afraid. --Crusio (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sukiyaki Western: Django. Clear? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not clear, I think. I guess you meant Quentin Tarantino and you are referring to him playing a role in the "Sukiyaki Western", but what does that have to do with this debate? --Crusio (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comments. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Number of films is not the main point to keep. Much more important that the character, Django was portrayed by at least seven notable actors, and not only in italian or american movies. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A notable character appearing in Italian, English and Japanese films over a period of 30 years. Django is an important part of the Spaghetti western genre and enough scholarly work exists to support having a separate article. Take for example this book. Some twenty pages and one full chapter ("i was away, too far away") are allocated to discussing Django's role in the spaghetti westerns. And there is a whole book devoted to the study of the character (along with two others). Along with Man with No Name and Santana, he is one of the most well known spaghetti western characters. And he is a part of film studies curriculum in many college courses--Sodabottle (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn Given the sources that have been found by several of the above editors, I withdraw my nomination. I hope those sources will not only figure here but will be included in the article. I still think that an article on the series of movies instead of the character would be more useful, but such does not seem to be the consensus here. As there are no other "delete" votes, this AfD can be closed. --Crusio (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a few hours. I will present you a few more proofs of notability. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Wikipedia has load of articles about fictional characters, so clearly there cannot be an objection in principle to having articles on fictional characters. This character appears in lots of old films shown on mainstream TV in England. There is no reason why the article cannot be developed to become a good article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found and withdrawal of nominaton. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:00, 15 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) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Anime Channel

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

Unnotable, non-existent television channel. Article is just a regurgitation of the press releases for the proposed channel, for a license approved over 3 years ago with no channel materializing yet. There is no set launch date for this "channel". Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N, it does not warrant an article at this time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 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 no consensus. There's definitely a consensus that this article has problems, but no consensus as to what to do about that, so we default to keeping. There are valid arguments made on both the keep and delete side of the discussion. Discussions about retitling or merging can happen on the article talk page. If no good solutions can be found a return to trip to AfD down the road would not be at all inappropriate. Actually sourcing the article in some fashion would presumably make that less likely. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television shows featuring older versions of cartoon characters

Television shows featuring older versions of cartoon characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list of original research and trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk YO! 13:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They predict that it's going to get even worse in 2006. Mandsford (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's trivial only to the extent that it refers to characters being slightly older. From a financial standpoint, Nickelodeon and Hanna-Barbera did quite well in creating teenage versions of Pebbles and Tommy Pickles. Nausea aside, this would work as an article with a short list, rather than a list with a short article. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title is awkward. I was imagining, say, Steamboat Willie appearing on any TV show, since that's an older (further in the past) version of Mickey than the current one. I agree with Abductive; I'd like to see sources treating this as a subject. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:ORfest. Do we have an article on this subject? Not that I see. Can we find secondary sources on that subject? Probably not. Do we need a list without an article on the subject. Certainly not. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or likely find a good merge candidate. I might be missing something here but if an established cartoon character is presented as one age, arguably throughout their "lives", and then a new show repackages them as a an older version of themselves that doesn't seem to be either indiscriminate or OR. And every show is sourcible to itself but likely also has received some coverage that would attest to the bare basics as presented here. And trivia would also not seem to apply as this is a stand-alone list of this occuring not trivial information tacked onto some other subject. There is a point to be made that this is a very short list so may better serve our readers as prose in some other article but I would want someone much more familiar with our coverage in this subject area to offer a way forward. If no elegant solution for a merge then leaving it just where it's at seems acceptable for now. -- Banjeboi 15:44, 13 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 Speedy deleted' under WP:CSD#A7. DES (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Grenadiers Junior Drum and Bugle Corps

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

I'm having difficulty finding reliable sources covering this drum corps, under any of it's names. Not clear how it might ever meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) RadioFan (talk) 12:58, 10 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. Tone 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tinessonli

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

Delete No evidence of notability. The article gives no sources at all. Google search produces (apart from Wikipedia) three facebook pages and that is all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The date was wrong. It is a legit sport and was made in January. It should not be deleted, but the date needs to be changed. Nothing comes up on Google search because it has only been around for two months and is a local game. Obviously, with no official league or website, nothing will come up on Google search. I live in Dayton and I have seen many people playing it and even tournaments. It is a real sport and apparently has a patent pending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryallen313 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on the above, how is it notable? GregJackP (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You really just shot yourself in the foot with a lot of what you just said. If it's only a local game, only been around for two months, and nothing comes up on Google search, all of which you just admitted, how is this possibly notable? ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the above just said, a patent is pending. Isn't that be notable enough for you? Once it gets a patent, will that be notable enough for you? Will it kill anyone to have this page on Wikipedia? No. Who cares if it doesn't pop up on Google? Type your name into Google. If you don't pop up, does that make you any less of something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostChik7 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by LostChik7 (talk • contribs) was actually added by 70.153.144.232 (talk • contribs) - 70.153.144.232 has made no other edits. LostChik7 has made no edits at all. In the above edit the "Contributions" link is in fact a link to Special:Contributions/Barryallen313. Barryallen313, the creator of the article, has commented above. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, but a patent does not make this notable, and, while a google search on my name in real life does produce quite a large number of hits, I am not notable in the way wikipedia defines the term. The issue isn't, I think, that the game is or is not important, fun, valuable, or holds great promise for the future, but rather that it fails to meet the guidelines for notability. My suggestion would be that you request this be moved to your userspace until such time as it can meet notability requirements. It does sound like an interesting game, and I wish you luck in popularizing it, but wikipedia isn't the place for promoting it. Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wonder if the anonymous editor above knows what a patent pending means. Anyone can apply for a patent: the fact that an application is pending does not make anything notable. In fact a lot of patents which are granted (let alone pending) are for things which are never heard of again. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 15 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 speedy delete. g11 slakr\ talk / 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citra Indah Residence

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

This reads like an advertisement that has not been fixed or modified in over 6 months - any non advertising tex can be put in the the Ciputra article and this article deleted or made a redirect SatuSuro 12:48, 10 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 speedy deleted by Slakr (talk · contribs) Olaf Davis (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciputra Group

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

Delete and merge any info into parent article Ciputra - this is an unnecessary stub SatuSuro 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am prepared to withdraw this Afd for an alternative speedy delete item SatuSuro 13:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bergabung sejak 2018 silam Rizalahhmad (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence at all of notability, either in the article or elsewhere. I think it should be speedy-deleted, but I see no reason to withdraw this AfD: if the speedy is declined this can go ahead, and if the speedy is accepted this AfD can be speedy-closed. If this is withdrawn and the speedy is declined we waste time having to start another AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply thanks for taking the time out to explain SatuSuro 13:23, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Lexicography

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

Not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks references to coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news and web searches bring up nothing significant on the article title. RadioFan (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice. Barely intelligible vanity page apparently meant to promote someone's online business: Digital Lexicography Created(Circa 1999), in Leeds, Created by Martin Hare the Costing modeller, VBA Programmer/ Excel Modeller Martin Hare ... In 1999 Martin Hare with knowledge of Visual Basic for Applications and Excel produced the "Digital Lexicography" methodology, this has been used for many checking and testing environments. He does seem rather eager to get credit for this. The concept of digital lexicography may support an article, but this is about somebody's minor tech business or pet project. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not explain concept, and seems more about a company than about a concept. Also, you might want to take a look at Martin Hare. The page was done by the same person. The article seems to capitalise on Martin Hare being the creator. Guanlong wucaii 16:07, 10 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. Tone 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson, A Muslim

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

Unreferenced original research. RadioFan (talk) 12:14, 10 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 redirect to Tchoukball. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beach tchoukball

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

Minor not notable variant of the main sport Gnevin (talk) 12:04, 10 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. Tone 23:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beach korfball

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

Minor not notable variant of the main sport Gnevin (talk) 12:04, 10 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. Tone 23:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McDowell

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

Deleted two times as an A7. Needs some evaluation about the subjects notability. feydey (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research on notability will gain you more insight into the guidelines of notability within the Wikiproject, it will not however improve Mr McDowell's chances of gaining notability. As for what you perceive as sarcasm is in fact incredulity that the weight given to McDowell's colour blindness will in some way increase his notability. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not even begin to understand what is supposed to be sarcastic, distasteful, or combative about Fred the Oyster's comments. Is Ben Torres, Photographer being a little hypersensitive? I have defective colour vision, and I don't see anything to be offended by. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 12 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) 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Fate

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

Non-notable rapper with no albums or hit songs; he's friends with Ludacris and signed to his label, Disturbing tha Peace, so he's appeared on a number of Ludacris songs but nothing that would bestow notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:02, 10 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) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable funded companies

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

A list Y Combinator, lacking references. Name is horrible as it doesn't limit itself to Y-Combinator companies, Apparantly created to be a primary source for this information. Previously part of the main Y-Combinator article SimonLyall (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is less than a day old. Give it time to grow. No sense rushing to the AFD straight away. You could've tagged it for references needed, or used the talk page to ask where the information was coming from, and the article's creator would've surely told you. Searching for news stories with the numbers listed and the name of the companies involved, will surely provide some sources. Anyway, showing how many notable companies got start up funding from the Y Combinator company, is quite reasonable for an encyclopedia topic. Dream Focus 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this [17]? There are some news stories about some of these companies getting money from Y Combinator. And I'm sure on their official company website, they list how much they gave to what companies as well, so the verifiability WP:V policy required by Wikipedia, is easily met. Dream Focus 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Actually one of the problems is that the Y Combinator website is not complete. Hence the external lists that people are maintaining and the problem with references. The article content itself is directly copied from an old version of the Y Combinator article which previously housed the list (which did not get updated or refed etc). The article name itself is worse than awful - SimonLyall (talk) 19:49, 10 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) 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tie One

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

A non-notable graffiti tagger, and an equally non-notable crime victim. - Bricology (talk) 09:06, 10 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 Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vault Beach

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

Stub, unreferenced article written like a travel guide - which wikipedia is not. Simple Bob (talk) 08:44, 10 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duporth Holiday Village

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

An article, which reads like a travel guide (which wikipedia is not) about a holiday village which makes no claims to the subjects notability. The article is unreferenced and looks like me like it was written to promote the subject of the article. Simple Bob (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment we should have an article about the former house, which could incorporate information about the (now closed) holiday parc and the housing development which now occupies the site. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is some history to the village, so I think it does deserve the same status as any other conurbation. Yes the current article needs some work but that alone is no cause for deletion. From [20]

The site was formerly a farm within the Duporth

estate owned by Charles Rashleigh. The Manor House and part of the Duporth Estate was bought by Arthur and Lydia Potter and George and Doris Rankin, trading as Seaside Holiday Camps Ltd, in 1933. The camp opened by the Whitsun of 1934. In the first season there were only about 4 rows of chalets. The camp was going from strength to strength when the 1939/45 war broke out and for most of that time the holiday camp was requisitioned by the War Department. First came the Indian Army, together with their mules. Indian officers and their batmen stayed in the Manor House and the soldiers were billeted in the chalets. When the Indian Army moved out the American Army moved in and hid their tanks and lorries under the trees in the woods. They left Duporth to take part in the D Day landings in June 1944.

When the camp was de-requisitioned after the war it again resumed as a holiday camp. Further land acquisitions took place with the area of the caravan park being purchased at the end of 1947. During the late 50's and early 60's Duporth was mainly a holiday venue for professional people i.e. Doctors, Solicitors, etc. Many people came by train and special coaches were always reserved to bring guests from the railway station. The main complex was built in 1962 following a fire, which gutted the former central building that had housed the dining room, entertainment facilities, kitchens and a shop.

Butlins bought the camp in 1976 and continued to run the camp under the "Freshfields" banner. Duporth Manor began to show serious signs of decay from the late 1970's and eventually became uneconomic to repair. Situated in front of the main clubroom/restaurant building, it was demolished in 1989.

--Salix (talk): 12:18, 10 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) 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Edinburgh Fringe venues

List of Edinburgh Fringe venues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declaration of potential COI:I am the proposer of this deletion, and also a director of one of the venues listed on the page. I hope it is clear that I am proposing this as a Wikipedia editor, not as director (since I would presumably argue for keeping the list in that case). I suggested this deletion on the talk page more than two weeks ago, and there have been no responses. --ColinFine (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Talk page indicates that this page was created as a honeypot to distract publicity-seeking edits from the main Edinburgh Festival Fringe each August - a reasonable aim in itself but best dealt with by resolutely reversing such edits as COI and non-notable. As Colin says in Talk:List_of_Edinburgh_Fringe_venues#Delete.3F, this list article doesn't really work as a WP page (and there are plenty of more appropriate listing media out there during the Fringe). AllyD (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of non-notable venues. Many fringe venues only come into existence for a few weeks in August, and many others appear or disappear each year. Agree with AllyD that acting as a "honeypot" is not a good enough reason to have his article. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:19, 11 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 Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booby's Bay

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

An unreferenced stub which reads more like a travel guide (which Wikipedia is not) than an encyclopaedia entry. Simple Bob (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the present stub is not encyclopedic and as it stands is a candidate for deletion. However, I think that because Booby's Bay is a distinct geographical feature of the north Cornwall coast it should be the subject of an article – after all, one of the aims of WP:Cornwall is to provide comprehensive coverage of the county.Andy F (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Peterkingiron, if the article is to be merged, it would be more appropriately merged with adjacent Constantine_Bay or nearby Trevose Head because Padstow is five miles away – on that basis one could argue that places such as Harlyn, Trevone, St Merryn, Treator, Petherick, Rock, Trebetherick, Polzeath, St Minver and several others be merged into Padstow. Andy F (talk) 08:26, 13 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 Procedural KEEP All Each article should be judged on its own merit as per DGG and Mkativerata. Renominate individually if justified Mike Cline (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L-Arginine Malate

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

All of these articles about dietary supplements look encyclopedic on the surface, but their motivation for being here is to promote the commercial website purebulk.com. As you can see from this posting on odesk dot com, the webpage has been looking for paid editors to help promote themselves. The odesk buyer who listed the ad, Jared Smith, is listed as purebulk's operater on its website.

These pages, each uploaded by the same user (User:Healthycare), all have very similar duplicate articles on purebulk.com. As an example, the duplicate page to L-Arginine Malate is here (link now unavailable - copy of transcript here. Note the similar wording: "L-Arginine Malate is used to help build lean, strong muscles, burn fat, increase strength and stamina, and promote recovery. The compound is considered to be effective for improving recovery after surgery. The intake of L-arginine with ribonucleic acid (RNA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) before or after surgery seems to help reduce the recovery time, decrease the number of infections, and speed up wound healing after surgery." is written in our article and "L-Arginine Malate can help build lean, powerful muscle, burn fat, increase strength and power, maximize endurance, and promote recovery. L-Arginine Malate is also effective for improving recovery after surgery. Taking L-arginine with ribonucleic acid (RNA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) before surgery or afterwards seems to help reduce the recovery time, decrease the number of infections, and speed up wound healing after surgery." is written in the commercial purebulk article. The purebulk articles are all commercial in nature and all exist to sell the product that they discuss, with several different sizes and prices listed on each page.

Relevant policies for deletion would be WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and also potentially WP:COPYVIO if more close paraphrases are discovered throughout the articles. Again, although there is a lot of puffery to these articles, they should be deleted because their real purpose is to use Wikipedia for commercial interests. ThemFromSpace 08:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator's recommendations and reasoning, all except Creatine ethyl ester because its creation pre-dates the promotional contents and has been reverted to an older version. While most of these topics are notable enough to be included, under these circumstances I would prefer them to be deleted and recreated from scratch. If they are not deleted, they should at the very least be reduced to stubs. Others could be redirected to articles on the parent chemical compound (Synephrine hydrochloride to Synephrine, for example). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Creatine ethyl ester is certainly notable enough to have it's own article (numerous editorial pieces in fitenss and bodybuilding magazines throughout the 2000's). No comment on the other items in the list. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creatine ethyl ester was nominated by mistake and is now removed. Sole Soul (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll extend my opinion of Keep to the other ingredients. There are varying degrees of notability, and I disagree with the nomination that they're spam. A re-write is always favorable over a mass-delete based on suspected commercial involvement. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm rather leery of mass deleting this many articles. I will admit that I did not visit each page, but the ones I did look at Zinc aspartate, Arginine Pyroglutamate, Creatine ethyl ester, and Betaine aldehyde all seemed reasonably neutral in tone. All of these compounds may be worthy encyclopedia subjects, even if they are inert or dangerous. None contains a link to purebulk.com. I probably take a harder line on spam than many, but these articles are not about obscure or non-consumer businesses or products. They're about chemical compounds: subjects that, for want of a better word, are "encyclopedic". The motives for creating them seem to be only faintly reflected in the actual content. If any are in fact copyright violations, deletion without prejudice would be indicated, although close paraphrase is probably acceptable in material of this sort. As general subjects they seem quite appropriate, and the bias or conflict of interest is not so obvious on the surface. Flag them for expert attention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I added whatever related links I could find to purebulk next to the article names up above. ThemFromSpace 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. comment from the articles originator Wow, what a debate! I think I have to put something to justify my work. Not sure if I'm allowed to vote, but you should take into consideration these facts:
  1. These are all worthy encyclopedia subjects having good reliable and verifiable sources.
  2. These are not about obscure or non-consumer businesses or products.
  3. They are all reasonably neutral in tone...if you think something needs to be changed, then change it.
  4. They are not copywrited content, all having its own and proven originality. J.D. (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much as I dislike dietary supplement quackery, I think that these articles are adequately referenced at least as to chemical characteistics. However, any claims to medical efficacy, unless referenced to reliable sources, should be removed by normal editorial process.Thincat (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of these compounds are simply trivial salts or esters; they should be redirected to the parent compound. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renominate individually the articles of of different degrees of notability, merit, and freedom from advertising. There's no one solution that applies to them all, and I did check each article. It would help to remove all unsupported claims of nutritional or medical use first, article by article. This is too much to rewrite during an afd. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
  • A procedural keep all without prejudice to immediate individual renominations. We can't confidently say keep all or delete all for the lot. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking at the first of Smerdis of Tlön's examples - Zinc aspartate - the article seems okish, and there are plenty of google news/books/scholar results, so I think it would be better to close this and renominate them individually. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "But the links are useful" is an unacceptable argument used by spammers when the links they added are deleted, it should not be acceptable here. Spamming distorts the way we determine which topics worth coverage and which do not. Sole Soul (talk) 23:15, 18 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC101 Chili Cook-Off

DC101 Chili Cook-Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local charity rock concert event. Only local sites about the event, nothing national. VERY little links and references (some are deadlinks). ALOT of original research. Fails WP:N. NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC) 08:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Since when is national notoriety required for an article to be kept? While regional in scope, the region includes parts of DC, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The growing concert raises over $1 million for charity annually, and has been active for over 30 years. The article is not a stub, and notable source for data are out there if one spends enough time looking for them. Jason Smith (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could use a little work, but this is certainly a notable event in the region. Strikerforce (talk) 07:47, 17 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) 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macronaut

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

WP:NEO Ks0stm (T•C•G) 08:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO, WP:NFT. See [35]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:26, 11 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) 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Altararwah

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

Non-notable actor, Unreferenced BLP. No significant coverage, even online. Barely even has a claim for notability. CSD previously rejected, so bringing to AfD. Joshua Scott (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not so sure about the subject's lack of notability. While there does not appear to be enough substantial english sources, there may be enough in arabic; he appears to have an arabic WP page, with a couple of refs that could be reasonable, although I can't read arabic so can't make a judgement. Other arabic sources may also be found. Jhbuk (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless sources are procured.--PinkBull 21:42, 17 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Sushi

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

Absolutely no sources found in Google News or anywhere else. No proof that it aired on foreign Nickelodeon channels. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 06:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The AWN source is the only reliable sourcing I can find. It seems solid as far as the source goes, and the coverage, while not quite extensive, isn't trivial. The additional evidence suggesting that the show aired seals it for me, but I wish I could find more actual coverage of the topic. I'm almost a neutral on this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:53, 10 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 merge to McMaster University. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Hall (McMaster University)

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

dormcruft, Fails WP:GNG Mrheadhappyday (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, that's an ever better idea. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 15 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 redirect to List of professional wrestling terms. The consensus seems to be for redirect as a compromise solution, pending future expansion. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High-flyer wrestler

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

orphaned, unreferenced, original research, no indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 03:48, 10 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 both. The only keep argument amounts to WP:UPANDCOMING. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Cedeño

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

Does not meet notability guidlines as per WP:ATHLETE; he has never played at the professional level. Digirami (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pablo Espinoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep Delete Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding something here, but the player is listed on the current roster of Barcelona Sporting Club, which is (if the article on the club can be relied upon) a professional club. I will check back in on this though because I'm not entirely familiar with professional football and want to make sure I'm evaluating this properly. I'm going to hop over to the AfD for Pablo Espinoza and espouse the same opinion there. Seeing as this AfD is apparently for both players, my opinion here applies to both, pending someone else coming in and telling me that my understanding of what constitutes professional football is off-target!

    Changing vote to delete per nominator's helpful clarification below, regarding actual playing time. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this link is to the current team's roster (my ability to interpret written Spanish is amateurish at best), then my vote changes rather swiftly to a delete, and I promptly head over to the Barcelona Sporting Club article and revise the current player list. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The basis for the squad list is probably this, FEF's list of player registered to play for Barcelona this year (you may need to choose Barcelona S.C. from the pull-down menu). Under a new regulation for 2010, every team in Ecuador must use an under-19 player in each game. Carlos Cedeño & Pablo Espinoza are two of those under-19 players Barcelona has listed as eligible to play for them in 2010. But, according to the respective player cards (Cedeño & Espinoza), which are updated weekly, they have yet to appear/compete as a professional (see the line listed as "MAYORES"). They have only competed in the reserve tournament. Digirami (talk) 07:44, 10 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen people

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

Virtually un-sourced article, a mishmash of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH . There is nothing here that cannot be merged into the respective main articles. We already have a Jews as a chosen people article that is well sourced and complete. Further there are (major) hints here of attempts to denigrate certain religion(s) so there are POV issues as well. Perhaps it is merely a WP:COATRACK on which to hang some "ethnocentric" labels on certain people. Stellarkid (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the article is rather vague about what exactly being "chosen people" means. Actually even Jews disagree among themselves on this. An article on the expression might be possible. Part of the problem here is that groups who don't even use that expression are included according to the judgement of the author who thinks that what they believe is similar the Jewish concept of chosenness. It would probably be better to discuss each group's views in thier own article rather than combining them together here. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I had this whole long thing and then I accidentally closed the window :(. I think this is a necessary article to have as a repository of groups of people who consider themselves chosen. Yes, there is an article on Jews as the chosen people and an article on Supersessionism, but there may not be articles on other groups that consider themselves chosen just yet. The article needs better references (okay, references) that might be culled from pertinent sections of other articles. The Spanish edition of this article has pretty good references (whereas the Dutch edition spends most of the time talking about The Matrix for some reason), and perhaps some from articles like People of God. Also the wikilinks need to be link to more specific articles or sections. Steve, I don't know if it would be feasible to merely discuss chosenness in each religion's article. For example Chosen People says that Hindus do not believe in chosenness. You might not find that bit of information in the article on Hinduism (I looked), but it should be somewhere. An article called List of Chosen People would not fare too well as it would automatically be considered POV. What I think could improve this article is that it reveal views on chosenness instead of taking positions, whether groups believe they are chosen or not and if they feel another group is chosen. Basically I think the article should stay but I think it needs a bit of improvement and we need to draw the sources from the other articles. This argument was much better before I accidentally closed the window... Valley2city‽ 07:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can be sourced and OR can be excised. Absolutely a notable and RS'ed topic. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While a potentially worthwhile topic, all content seems to fall under WP:OR, and as the nominator notes, there is already an article for the only group that I know espouses the concept. --Nutarama (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research; sometimes dubious/unreferenced. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic is valid in that many groups see themselves as a chosen people. They may define "chosen" differently, but the fact remains they define themselves as such. If there is a statement without a reference we typically add a "fact" tag; we don't delete the article. Using a simple fact tag also quickly gets rid of OR and SYN problems. More fundamentally, SYN and OR are not acceptable reasons to delete an article. Does the article need to be improved? Yes Is the topic a valid topic for Wikipedia? Yes Are lists and related articles on commonalities among divergent groups valid for Wikipedia? Yes! This article is a strong keep. --StormRider 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to respective articles, if there is anything with a source that's worth keeping, that is. The rest per the nominator. Outback the koala (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particularly enamored with this article but sourcing issues alone should not be a reason for deletion and being "virtually un-sourced" even less so. Let's not depend on virtue in these cases but on actual facts. (And my brief reading of the article did not uncover the denigration mysteriously mentioned in the nomination—please elucidate.) Keep the article and clean it up. However, if deletion is agreed upon, consider moving Chosen people (disambiguation) to this title. — AjaxSmack 18:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unsalvageable OR.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Is salvageable, sourceable, and repairable. Dew Kane (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable general topic. The subarticles referred to are independently notable, and its appropriate to have this one also. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - original research concerns are fixable since the topic has been the subject of reliable sourcing. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:57, 19 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos set in New York City

List of music videos set in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unreferenced, unmaintainable, indiscriminate list consisting entirely of original research. RadioFan (talk) 03:04, 10 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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Teufel III

Hugo Teufel III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has never held a notable political position; has never been in a position requiring Senate confirmation; lengthy biography is entirely WP:SYN and WP:PRIMARY plus one news piece repeating a press-release, and a Frankenstein mess of non-notable glancing press references. I'm also nominating the related non-notable Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security article: this is too far down the government food-chain to be encyclopedic. Teufel's replacement has sat in the office for a year without anyone bothering to create an article for her. THF (talk) 02:18, 24 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) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seriously? The office was the first statutorily created privacy officer position in the federal government. The office is the largest in the federal government, and one of the largest privacy offices globally. The officeholder testified before Congress several times and served was part of the High Level Contact Group, a joint US/EU effort on trans-atlantic exchanges of personal data. If the entry is a "Frankenstein mess", it should be cleaned up and if his successor doesn't have a page create one! Is server memory so expensive that entries like this one and Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security don't have a place?

P.O.F.D. (talk) 03:55, 7 March 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) 02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see only one reference [36] which is an independent and reliable source with significant coverage, noting his lack of qualifications for the office he was appointed to at Homeland Security. The article reads like it is his resumé, and the other references are press releases, directory listings or routine announcements. The office he held does not in itself rise to the level of "automatic notability" such as being a cabinet member or a legislator. Just one more mid-level bureaucrat. Edison (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly no inherent notability in the position. There is not significant coverage either. Essentially agree with Edison above. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The DHS Privacy Officer was the first statutorily mandated privacy office in the federal government and the officer reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Subsequent to its establishment, Congress has required privacy officers at all major agencies, first through a 2005 appropriations act and later in the 2007 9/11 Commission Report Act. The officer is one of two US government officials given observer status at the annual international data protection commissioner/privacy officer's conference. The office is the largest and most advanced privacy office in the federal government and is the standard by which others are judged. GAO reports on Executive Branch privacy have frequently used the DHS privacy office as a benchmark to compare other agency privacy offices. In contrast, whatever one thinks of the principal deputy solicitor general, that position is not a statutory position (although 18 USC 3742 does reference "a deputy solicitor general") and that position does not report to the Attorney General. As for Teufel, his tenure was during the Bush Administration and the War on Terror. He was criticized early in the position by the San Francisco Chronicle and the annual reports of his office were the subject of Congressional and advocacy group scrutiny over alleged delays in their release and concern over Administration interference with the office's objectivity and whistle-blower status. This concern resulted in an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel and coverage in the New York Times. His time in office was noted by Congressional testimony on a number of high-profile issues, including the use of spy satellites for law enforcement purposes within the U.S.; privacy impact assessments on matters such as fusion centers, EINSTEIN 2 intrusion detection system, REAL ID regulations, and the Automated Targeting System (passenger name record data); and the elimination of a backlog of over 200 system of records notices. If the office and officeholder do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, one must assume that many others listed in the category "United States Department of Homeland Security officials" will also be up for deletion. Rather than discuss whether to delete an entry that has been up on Wikipedia for 3 1/2 years, time should be spent editing it to get it into shape.P.O.F.D. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I only see one independent reliable news article,[37] and the article's entire premise is that the person is not notable.--PinkBull 21:24, 17 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 speedy delete (A10) as a duplicate (albeit in another language) of the current article. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Gaelic Wikipedia. –MuZemike 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (UK and Ireland)

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

Article is in unknown language, and has no salvageable English content. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Disney XD (Ireland) For another similar page. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 02:18, 10 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) 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research Students Conference Probability and Statistics

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

This is an orphaned article, and is not notable. Further, having read the article's talk page, it would appear that the article is in violation of WP:OR. It may be worth referring to the deletion discussion for a related article, AfD:Research Students Conference, which was deleted. -m-i-k-e-y-Talk / C 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "m-i-k-e-y", can you explain what looks to you like "original research" in this article? That seems extraordinarily far-fetched to me. The author of this article was the first to discover that this conference exists, and posted it here to announce it for the first time to the world? Isn't that what original research is? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh???? The article has no external links! Yet you criticize it as an "excuse to park a LOT of external links on Wikipedia". And the phrase "these kids" invites us to be disrespectful to you. You shouldn't go out of your way to incite should things. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you're talking about links to the talk schedules. But there's nothing that looks as if the article is just an excuse for such links. Andrew Lenahan, you've seriously damaged your credibility by your way of phrasing your comments. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is absurd to suggest this is an attempt at promotion. Obviously the target audience from promotion would not be reached here, but rather would be reached where they are: postings on bulletin boards of the appropriate academic departments and the like. The creator of the article stated on its talk page why he created it. His comments are credible, and don't sound stupid like the comments posted here suggesting that it's for the purpose of promotion or "parking weblinks", or the suggestion that someone hasn't heard of "nofollow" tags. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text is not particularly promotional, but often the creation of Wikipedia articles for subjects that do not follow the general notability guidelines are to give said subject visibility and thus often promotion. In this case, it's more of a matter of WP:NOTWEBSPACE. If the author wants to make a webpage for past, present and possibly future conferences, he'll have to find another website to do so. Regardless, there appears to be no significant coverage by reliable sources of this event to establish its notability and warrant keeping this article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the article is kept (which looks extremely unlikely), then it should be moved to the correctly punctuated "Research Students' Conference Probability and Statistics", or else its authors are likely to be mauled by an angry panda. Also, the sentence "As usual, this four day event is organised by postgraduates, for postgraduates, providing an excellent opportunity to make contact and discuss work with other students who have similar interests" is a clear red flag, altough I was unable to find the source from which this was copied. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no strong feelings about keeping or deleting this article, although I lean mildly toward keeping it, but much of the above looks like a competition to find meritless reasons for deleting. An excuse for external links? Clearly that is not the case. "Promotion"?? That is idiotic! The target audience from promotion will not be reached here; they're found elsewhere. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some of the reasons given do appear to be clutching at straws. However, that does not change the fact that the article relies almost entirely on primary source material (including email correspondences, by the admission of the article's creator). I don't really have a strong opinion either, but I would like to see some sources that meet WP:V included. I couldn't find much in the way of general information by cursory googling, aside from our own article, and this is generally a bad sign. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Idiotic"? Steady now, Michael Hardy! -m-i-k-e-y-Talk / C 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me rephrase that. It's what I would expect someone to write if they weren't thinking about whether it's true or not, but just trying to collect things out of lists of valid grounds for deleting articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whether or not some of the reasons given above are valid, WP:ORG is about coverage in secondary sources and that doesn't seem to exist here. I'm not entirely convinced that WP:ORG should be the criteria for inclusion of scholarly societies, but this doesn't seem to be a good test case.--RDBury (talk) 04:51, 12 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 keep. Plenty of coverage has been found since the article was put up for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sloan (American basketball player)

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

College athlete with no significant coverage in reliable sources. does not meet general notability or athlete specific notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If pages such as Damion James are allowed to exist (college player with equally little impact) then this page should be allowed to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.161.28 (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid appeal to WP:Other stuff exists. PDCook (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Player 5th in the Big 12 in scoring, leader of his top 25 team and first team all big 12 selection. What more is needed for a college athlete? The page is still being expanded on to add more information and sources, give it time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.129.20 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He fails WP:ATHLETE by default, so the article needs references that demonstrate notability. PDCook (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article is being added to and now contains 5 reliable sources. Some of which do demonstrate notability (All Big 12 honors). More will be added as time allows but that's all I can do for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.129.20 (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson - I am attempting my best to correct deficiencies that have been pointed out here, I have now added references 6 &7 which are articles that feature Sloan (one from a local media outlet - Houston, Tx - & one from a national outlet - Fanhouse. Is that the type of information you are referring to? Given a little guidance I can make this article relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.129.20 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also just added ref #10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.129.20 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ATHLETE is ridculously outdated with regard to amateur athletes. It lists the Olympics and World Championships as examples of the "highest level of amateur competition" even though both of these have accepted professionals nearly across the board for almost 20 years. Sloan is notable in that he DOES play at the highest level of amateur basketball competition - top player on a top 25 team who is All-Big 12 Conference in one of the highest profile leagues in America. I don't believe all college basketball players are notable (a good example of one who isn't is Michael Dunigan, also up for deletion. He is an average player on a below-average team), but if you are a major award winner - and I would count 1st team All-Conference in a "top 6" league - you are notable. Besides, if you wait 3-4 months he'll be a pro anyway - either in the NBA or a top European league - all big conference stars are that good. I do recommend the page title be changed to Donald Sloan (basketball), however, since there isn't another Sloan playing hoops. Rikster2 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - also adding to objective notability, was just named to the 2010 Big 12 All-Tournament team. matt91486 (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple pieces on Sloan or otherwise articles focusing exclusively on him, demonstrating media coverage of him personally: [38], [39]. At this point I realize there are only a couple, but I haven't been looking super hard either. They just show up in a simple Google News search. matt91486 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entry has been vastly updated since the deletion tag was first added. Thanks to all who helped in finding quality sources. Does anyone know when a decision will be made regarding this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CLT08 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 15 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to Eat to Live

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

Text is not notable. Ism schism (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not? The first of them has several pages of coverage and the others at least a few paragraphs each, so there is significant coverage, and they are all published by major university presses, so they are independent and reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:05, 10 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbitech

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

Page was created by spam blocked account and reads more like a pamphlet than an article. Was denied CSD so I wanted to bring this here. No notable news mentions. avs5221 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:59, 10 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.

Bob Cockrum

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Save for the nominator's assertion of non-notability, there is a unanimous consent to keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde X

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

Not a notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 10 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) 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of terror

War of terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Anderson Jr

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

Not notable, content mainly in capitals, no refs Wintonian (talk) 01:13, 10 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) 00:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Diamond (magician)

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

The article has many self-published claims for notability, which however can not be verified through reliable sources. The only verifiable sentence in the article is in the "Stupidest Statements Awards" section, and the two sources there are heavily based on a press release from the subject, containing no information beyond what was in the press release, and are not actually about the subject but the 2009 awards (WP:BLP1E). There is no source describing this person as a magician or a genius. Actually, there is a lack of any kind of even trivial mentions in (reliable) independent sources.

As I wrote in the DRV, I am not convinced that Jim Diamond the genius and/or the magician even exists. Someone has been marketing products with that persona, though, both off-wiki and on-wiki. Prolog (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Selling CDs on how to become a genius, he exist for sure as the seller. No evidence of notability. -RobertMel (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a good rule of thumb, if the mere existence of the subject can't be proved, then that's a good sign that the subject is fundamentally too unverifiable for a Wikipedia article. Stage magicians tend not to be the most publicity-shy folks out there, and I have my doubts that someone could successfully work in that field for 45 years as claimed and yet have no reliable sources for any of it. "The Amazing Mr. Diamond", supposedly his stage name per the article, doesn't come up with anything on Google besides his own site, this article, and some random references to Neil Diamond. "Jim Diamond" +magician similarly comes up empty, with the first hit being an unrelated magician named Diamond Jim Tyler. Nothing at all on Google News either, even going back into the archives. This being a BLP, we need a whole lot more to go on than "Jim's" own website. Another genius once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.". So, as always, source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't have proof for anything beyond his existence, and we need a lot more than that for an article. If existence were all that was needed, we could have articles on everyone in the phone book. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources provided don't actually relate to him, but to a list of 'stupid statements' which he is apparently responsible for. That may be notable, but the person called Jim Diamond evidently is not. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 14 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) 06:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Bandham

Sneha_Bandham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Delete - No details on this page and also the existing data is incorrect. IMDB does not contain details about the movie either. Sreejith K (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:59, 10 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. One vote discounted as an SPA EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rider

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

No sources cited to support claim of notability as a pro gamer. Prod tag removed without adding any sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Slobface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:44, 10 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) 00:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul W. Lynch

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

Nominated for deletion due to notability. None of the references appear to indicate that this individual has written a book about his art or is otherwise notable. The references appear to discuss him only trivially if at all. The article appears as if it is being used as a personal advertisement. Finally, this article has come to notice on the BLP/N as having numerous BLP violations. I think the best way to resolve these issues is to delete the article. Jarhed (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteIn the record of this entry, it shows that the gentleman himself added this stuff, under his own user account Dochong. This is similar to several other "gurus" who have tried to promote their business on Wikipedia. A google search of "Paul W. Lynch" does not show a single website about him and buddhism, plus there are sources in the Zen community who point out he is a fraud with mental problems. Should look into his "organization" five mountain which is listed here also.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RevZendo (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_March_10&oldid=1142640821"