Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 16

< 15 April	17 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Glenn

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

Lack of notability and reference. Not notable enough for merge as character does not influence plot and is only used to set up the history of in-universe plot.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of GS characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per other. --Gwern (contribs) 17:03 17 April 2010 (GMT)

Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. Significant enough within the series to be merged, not deleted. (I said the same thing when I removed the Prod.) Edward321 (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Gundam related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 02:56, 22 April 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) 01:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Feschuk

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

A swimmer who looks to have achieved some degree of success at a junior level, but not at a full adult/professional level. There is a limited degree of coverage in apparently reliable sources, but perhaps not enough to get over the general notability guideline. I'll stay neutral on this having done a bit of work to source the article but I think, particularly for a BLP about a minor, this should be subject to an AFD. Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find significant coverage--Google shows only about 400 hits; this is an amateur athlete it appears and I was on the border of using a prod instead. fetchcomms☛ 23:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notable only in youth divisions, fails WP:ATHLETE. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:06, 17 April 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) 01:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Wilwohl

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

Contested speedy. Person is a blogger, all provided refs are not-reliable or are primary. I could find no secondary (non-primary) sources via Google news. Likely sock or meatpuppetry as well, as the article about the blog itself looks exactly like this one but was written by a different account. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article lacks even an assertion of notability per WP:BIO. Cptmurdok (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability in the article, sources in the article do not establish notability, I can't find any sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:30, 22 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theodosia Throckmorton

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

Not independently notable. Attempts at redirecting to Theodosia and the Serpents of Chaos are continually reverted. I'm bringing it here for a wider audience. I suggest that it be redirected and protected to avoid further recreation. Pyrrhus16 22:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independently notable. Main character in great series. OttomanJackson (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and gives no insight to the subject of the article. Doesn't distinguish that it's a character in a fictional book anyway. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, doesn't need its own article. fetchcomms☛ 23:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you help me alittle this article can be great or at least better. Main character in 3 books I will find sources soon. I worked very hard to make this!!!OttomanJackson (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Can't find any sources to establish independent notability. There doesn't seem to be anything except in-universe about the character. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added in a much-needed source. OttomanJackson (talk) 01:55, 24 April 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 and Rename to Murder of Alfred Kunz (Catholic priest) as per suggestion by Edison. Mike Cline (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Kunz (Catholic priest)

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

Delete per WP:VICTIM. The subject's only real claim to notability is the fact that he was murdered. 4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He also had some significance in the traditionalist Catholic movement and had been mentioned in news articles prior to his death. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please provide us with such sources. Unless we actually see them in evidence it does little good in the context of this discussion. Just having a few name mentions in newspaper articles prior to the murder is not enough. He needs to have multiple non-trivial coverage. That's only something that can be determined if we can have a look at the sources which you say exist. I wonder why you did not bother to include them in this article when you created it...? 4meter4 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we can find sources that Kunz was a leader in the Traditionalist movement, then Keep. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak delete) Googling his name, there are many hits - but they're all about his death. Now, perhaps the unsolved death of a priest in a ritualistic manner is 'notable', but he himself doesn't SEEM to be.David V Houston (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It is one of the earliest examples/victims of sexual-abuse/paedophilia in the catholic church, a long time before the actual tidelwave of incidents. --Stijn Calle (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That arguement doesn't make any sense Stijn Calle. Kunz was not a victim or perpetrator of sexual abuse. He was involved in investigating possiible cases of such abuse. Such internal investigations have been going on in the Catholic Church for decades, so the fact that he was an investigator doesn't in itself make him notable. Further, the link between his murder and his work as an investigator is only a suspicion but not a fact according to the sources. Once again, no sources have been produced to establish his notability outside of being a victim of murder.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Murder of Alfred Kunz (Catholic priest). We generally cover the crime and not the victim. He may have had some notability before his death, per the above discussion. Actual specific reliable and independent sources with significant coverage would be helpful in this discussion. Then he was murdered in a bizarre way, and the murder gained book coverage with extended coverage in more than one book [1], (which discussed his investigation of pedophiles among the priesthood)and press coverage coverage over a wide area, including major out of state papers: [2]. It gained the most massive investigation in the county's history [3]. At the first anniversary of the murder, the Milwaukee paper said he was "an expert in church canon law"and "a hero to some conservative Catholics" for continuing the Latin rite after its 1965 downgrading by the Church The Sheriff said the murder might have been by someone objecting to his continuation of the old rituals. The notability of the murder is shown by coverage of the second anniversary [4], fourth anniversary [5], the fifth anniversary [6] and the sixth anniversary [7] in state papers and TV and the tenth anniversary in a national Catholic news source:[8], [9]. Edison (talk) 03:18, 17 April 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) 01:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Douglas

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

Unreferenced BLP since mid-2009; the article associates the subject with a number of companies, but doesn't really do a lot in terms of establishing why she is notable, outside of marriage to another potentially notable person. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - With citations. Quick news search establishes WP:N. How exactly does one have $53,000 per week in personal expenses? - PlainSight (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into George David. Per GRuban, found additional sources, however all were either in context of divorce or attending some social event with her husband. - PlainSight (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - With or without citations. Not Notable and Unsourced and Not relevant as an encyclopedic article- --89.194.32.75 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is quite a bit of news coverage (Times, New York Magazine ...) but it's only about one thing, her ongoing divorce strife. It's apparently been ongoing since 2001 or so. :-P That's a person known for only one event, and though she's not really a low profile individual (the other requirement of deletion per BLP1E, and which is why this is only a weak recommendation), information on that is better put into the article on George David, who is apparently known for more than that. If someone can find reasonable coverage of her as an executive or a countess or even a socialite, I'll change to a keep per WP:HEY. --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Famous by association doesn't count. The news coverage isn't about her in and of itself, but rather about the divorce case.—DMCer™ 17:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be known only for who she married and their divorce. There is no indication she is independently notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:45, 22 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kissin' U

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Contested redirect. No charting, minimal coverage. SummerPhD (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its charted to #87 on the Billboard Hot 100 so far, and its the lead-off single to her first album. Seems pretty notable to me. CloversMallRat (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article was created a few weeks too early and presented a WP:CRYSTAL problem for a while, but now that the song has charted in the Billboard Hot 100 history has caught up with the article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be kept since Cosgrove is a notable artist and, above all, "Kissin' U" charted on the Billboard Hot 100. A reliable source is even provided. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:NSONG, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts ... are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." We have the name of the song, a release date and a low chart position. That's a stub. All of that is found in Sparks Fly (album) as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we have the music video. --Greeneyed soul (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "we have the unencyclopedic plot description of the music video". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:20, 19 April 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 Fairly obvious unencyclopedic essay that is essentially unsourced by secondary sources. That said, AfDs are not to place to challenge editor's motives regardless of their position on the article. There are other venues for that, so please take those types of discussions there. Mike Cline (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Brahma Kumaris and 2012

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

Speedied as A7, but does not really fit; since the speedy was contested, there's no point in proding, so I take this totally unencyclopedic essay here. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear delete; speedy, if possible. Written in first person, citing what I received through my link to God as a source--wow, yeah, this isn't going to work here. To make things worse, it's a spamvertisement for some Youtube videos. Heather (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. I'm amending the article to get it altered into something that is fit for an encyclopedia. I have done my Masters degree and have done a dissertation for a PhD which has been approved by a university. So I can understand what you guys are trying to say.Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At present, the article has several issues, and these are noted above. It is possible that the topic would better be served with an article elsewhere on the internet; until the topic has more coverage in independent, reliable sources (as defined by policy), it is unlikely that an article would survive here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. If the Brahma Kumaris and other similar groups are allowed to have their own article at Wikipedia, then something must also be here on the Global Brahma Kumaris. The Brahma Kumaris have many centers and members world wide. They have become very influential and many people know of them and their activities. There are many who do not like their family members joining the Brahma Kumaris because of all the things going on in the Brahma Kumaris. It has become huge and thus a lot of injustice etc takes place there. Thus, many have also left the Brahma Kumaris but are continuing to practice the BK knowledge while adopting to the ways of the world and this is what the Global Brahma Kumaris are all about. There are so many of such people world-wide and so the article will be capable of providing information about what's happening in the world in a informative and evaluative manner. What the Global Brahma Kumaris are involved with, is not something that many people world-wide are not aware of. Thus, people will want to know of what knowledgeable people are saying relating to this. One would be able to get to know of the pros and cons here. Further, the article has already got altered pretty quickly. The article does not sound like as if it was written in first person anymore. The article provokes the mind of thinkers relating to the scriptures. This is a encyclopedia-worthy trait, apart from the fact, that facts are given relating to what is happening in the world. The authour is intelligent will be capable of providing very evaluative information for the public. Though I am not as free as her, where time is concerned, (because I have a job) I will also amend the article from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LingKri (talk • contribs) 02:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) LingKri (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— LingKri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. The article and it's source appear to be published by the Brahma Kumari Pari and the links at the bottom of the article are to Youtube videos of herself. Also the comments and edits of LingKri, a new single-purpose account, appear to be some kind of stawman trolling in that it appears to be enthusiastic about the article and the editor but at the same time condemning the beliefs with words like "doomsday cult" and some anti-BK propaganda thrown in. The article itself is somewhat left-field of any mainstream beliefs that could be attributed to the Brahma Kumaris. Bksimonb (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. The Brahma Kumaris trains their members, who they use for service, to topple over anyone who does not accept their control and Bksimonb is just acting based on that training. LingKri is a member of the Global Brahma Kumaris Forum and Bksimond has just blindly made statements about LingKri in an attempt to topple over all his efforts. This is what the Brahma Kumaris do to all those who do not obey them. Bksimonb is attacking this article because BKs are trained to do such things to people who do not follow their guidance and instructions. Thus, Bksimonb's comment cannot be taken as a fair comment. It is biased because he is acting to uplift the image of the Brahma Kumaris. There was a comment made in the ex-BK forum that the BKs are constantly erasing the comments which they make in the articles on the Brahma Kumaris in Wikipedia. The Brahma Kumaris are not allowing fair comments in the articles about them. Bksimonb is also opposing this article because it is contrary to the good image of the Brahma Kumaris. Bksimond is also probably worried that the ex-BKs might spoil the Brahma Kumaris' image through revealing the truth about the Brahma Kumaris through this article. The Brahma Kumaris is a Doomsday cult but they are trying their best to cover it up so as to look like angels. This is not a forum but I had to say something because of what Bksimonb said. This article should be allowed to stay because it will allow fair comments to be made without any fear of being penalised by the Brahma Kumaris and because the contents of the articles are good.Karentansu (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Karentansu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong delete. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," but there are no independent reliable sources presented in this article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic knowledge relied upon and developed by the Global Brahma Kumaris is from the basic knowledge of the Brahma Kumaris. However, the members of the Brahma Kumaris are trained to make sure that everything is within their control and they will do anything to uplift their image or to maintain a good image. A friend of mine who is a lawyer (called Diwanji) and who had acted for some of the legal matters of the Brahma Kumaris told me of a case which he had handled for the Brahma Kumaris. Karuna Bhai, one of the seniors of the Brahma Kumaris at Shantivan (in India), knows him and Diwanji told me that it was Karuna Bhai who had requested him to act on behalf of the Brahma Kumaris, for the case where 2 BKs burnt another to death. It involved 3 centerwasis who were staying together in a BK center in North India. Centerwasis are those who live in the center and take care of the center and they observe celibacy (no sex). Two women and one man stayed in this center. The man and one of the woman began to sleep together and have sex. When the 3rd centerwasi got to know of this, the 2 centerwasis who were having an affair killed her by burning her. So the Brahma Kumaris asked my friend to help them to close the matter and to keep it unknown to the public, by paying off all relevant people including the police. Since the police were paid off, the police did not proceed with the matter and they closed the case. Having been in the Brahma Kumaris, I know that there is a lot of room for things like this to happen in the Brahma Kumaris and so I was not surprised when I heard it. But I have not checked it out to see if there is any truth in it. But if you take a look at the contents of the ex-BK Forum at [10], you will find a lot of stuff there which the Brahma Kumaris are trying to conceal. There is also another ex-BK Forum at [11]. The Brahma Kumaris are trying to make it seem like as if they are not a Doomsday cult and so they will deny that they are a source for some of the things said in this article. For some of the things which the BKs agree to, e.g. that there is a soul in each human body etc, I will try to link it up to some reliable source which may be a BK source or maybe from elsewhere. But where the practice of the BK teaching and Hinduism is concerned, I have been practicing the 2 for many years. I was born a Hindu and I have been practising BK knowledge since 1994. So I am a reliable source where experience and practice is concerned, in regards to these. So I understand the topic which I am writing on. But I will try my best to quote reliable sources like the Mahabharata and other scriptures, etc since sources have to be quoted in the wikipedia articles. The interpretation that the Pandavas are the fingers and that Draupadi is the palm is supposed to be based on a Hindu story. I will try to locate it. But in the Mahabharata itself, Krishna tells the Pandavas that they are not five but one. It is also said in the Mahabharata that when there is unity between the 5 fingers, they act as one hand or fist and the fist represents power. In the Mahabharata itself is was said that the sharing of Draupadi has to be understood. The Mahabharata is by itself the source that the each Pandava is endowed or blessed with a speciality. Since the Mahabharata, by itself, is a source for some of the things said in the article, the Mahabharata itself is a reliable source for these. A lot of other Hindu scriptures are also sources where the Hindu gods and goddesses are concerned. There are other reliable sources but I will have to find the reliable sources to quote. However, I am not too sure as to how to make a reference to an external link as a footnote and to link the contents in the body (of the article) to that footnote with a link. I am trying to learn how to do it. Further, it will take some time for me to properly link the article up to various sources and other wikipedia articles. I could cite BK books for some sources, though I am not sure if BK books are considered as reliable sources, especially since they are hiding a lot of their knowledge from the public to give themselves a good image. The Global Brahma Kumaris do not hide anything in respect of the spiritual knowledge used by the BK like how the BKs hide. So what one hears from the Global Brahma Kumaris may be closer to the Truth where BK knowledge is concerned than what the BKs present to the public. But off course, the Global Brahma Kumaris members accept even other teachings from other sources which the Brahma Kumaris do not accept and so what we use may not be the same as that which is accepted and used by the Brahma Kumaris. By the way, Wikipedia also has a “Ignore all rules” policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR)Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I especially liked this point from the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means) Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means: “Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you.” One need to have been in the Brahma Kumaris for many years to understand the injustice that can be done by the Brahma Kumaris to their members and through their extremist teachings. The BK knowledge is also interpretated by the seniors in such a way that it is in favour of the seniors and it helps to keep them in power and in control. The BKs are also indoctrinated with certain knowledge which can make it very difficult for members to live comfortably in the world, outside the Brahma Kumaris. Thus, there are many members, who have left the Brahma Kumaris, who are trying to help these people. The Global Brahma Kumaris is also one of those. It would be most considerate to the general public to allow the ex-BK members to speak as well, so that people do not just get the BK view point from the Brahma Kumaris, which is what is in the articles on the Brahma Kumaris. One can understand what I am saying by reading the things posted by ex-BKs in the ex-BK Forums. Many of those ex-BK Forum members had been members of the Brahma Kumaris for many years before they left. So they know of what is happening in the Brahma Kumaris. I do not mind if all the contents in my article gets deleted as being inappropriate and something else gets put in it's place. Since the Brahma Kumaris is a doomsday cult , one can't also separate the Global Brahma Kumaris from “world destruction” or doomsday. 2012 is an appropriate representation for doomsday.Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pari. I have nothing against you personally and this isn't some big cover-up going on. Wikipedia simply isn't the place to promote your own views or your own website. I am sure you would make a good editor here but I don't think the editor of bkinfo would make a good role-model for you because he is banned. We have a consensus here that the article should be deleted and "ignoring all the rules" is not going change that. Best Bksimonb (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a right to accept whoever I wish as my role model. If the editor of bkinfo has misconducted himself and been banned, that is his business. I will not take that as a reason for me to terminate my relationship with him as ex-BKs. Actually, I am not really an ex-BK. Frankly speaking, I do not mind it if this article gets deleted. But why did you make the statement, "We have a consensus here that the article should be deleted". Have you and the others who have requested for the article to be deleted in this page, got together and decided it. If there is some consensus between you and them, then they must be BKs or supportive of BKs. There are many BKs who disguise like as if they are not BKs and try to get BK service done in an incognito manner. I had also got involved with that kind of incognito BK service on the advise of the President of the Brahma Kumaris here in Malaysia. He and the other BKs would make statements like, "Go there dressed like a non-BK, and do service in an incoginito way". The reason why I brought this up now is that if all the others who have requested for "delete" have some consensus with you, then, the credibility of Wikipedia might be questioned. If this article gets deleted before I get an explanation for this question, then, it speaks a lot for itself. Anyway, I am not anti-BK. So if you want this article deleted, I can flow along with that. The Global BK can continue, with or without the wikipedia.Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pari. Of course you have a right to choose your role model but if you carry on accusing me and the other editors here of misconduct or being part of some big BK conspiracy, like the person I mentioned always did, and threaten to ignore all the rules like a bull in a china shop, then, on Wikipedia at least, you might not last too long. I don't even know the other editors that have commented here except for Karentansu and LingKri who are, most likely, aliases (sockpuppets) of the bkinfo admin who is trolling here. The reason we have a consensus regarding this article is because Wikipedia has clear policies and guidelines about what qualifies as an article here and those policies have existed long before you created your article.

You'll notice that there are hyperlinks in our replies, please read-up on where they are pointing to better understand what policies we are referring to.

I am quite happy for Global BK to continue. I had a look at the site and found it quite interesting. To have an article about it in Wikipedia it would need to have been documented by reliable sources and be notable. It's not that Global BK should be kept out at all costs, it's just that Wikipedia aims to keep a sense of proportion regarding the significance of an organisation in the world. If you pepper a number of articles with stuff about the Global BK group then it may give the reader the impression that it is somehow as well known and notable as the BKWSU itself, or that it actually IS the BKWSU. This is not in proportion to reality. More established offshoots from the BKIVV such as the AIVV have their own article because there are now some reliable sources that mention them.

Please don't think I am in any way against you. I appreciate what you are doing with your own website and admire your courage to participate positively in the face of hostility on the forums.

Best wishes, Bksimonb (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with Pari's questions. It is BKsimonb who is commenting on everthing said by Pari in a negative light. Bksimonb seems to have overlooked the fact that not everyone in this page is proposing “delete”. There are those who have proposed “Do not delete” and they have given very good reasons for proposing non-removal. If the management of Wikipedia deletes the Global Brahma Kumaris article and allows all the articles of the Brahma Kumaris to remain, then they are not being fair. The Brahma Kumaris are also only here for advertising their organization and trying to influence others through their articles here in Wikipedia. When there is a battle for status in the Brahma Kumaris, those in authority in the Brahma Kumaris or those who have money to buy the favours of the Brahma Kumaris remain in the Brahma Kumaris and those who left had become members of the Global Brahma Kumaris. The GBKs have been unfairly treated in the Brahma Kumaris, which is why they are in the Global Brahma Kumaris. If the management of Wikipedia deletes the article of the GBKs and allows the BK articles to remain in wikipedia, they are being as unfair to the GBKs as the BKs had been. If this article of the GBKs gets deleted, then the BK articles should also be removed from Wikipedia. There is nothing so great about the Brahma Kumaris that information needs to be given about them in an encyclopedia. The GBKs are greater than the BKs because we moved off from the Brahma Kumaris to allow the BKs to continue having status there. It is not that we wanted any status in the Brahma Kumaris but the BKs saw us as a threat to their status there. If the BKs are considered as having a good source for their links in the Wikipedia articles, then the GBKs also have a good source because the “Source” is the same for the BKs and the GBKs. The murlis, spiritual knowledge and all other sources created by the Brahma Kumaris is for all effort makers of the Confluence Age and the BKs have no right to claim complete rights and authority over all that. If the Brahma Kumaris are going to claim complete rights over those sources, then we can settle this matter in court. The BKs who are running the Brahma Kumaris have snatched the Brahma Kumaris away from those who are rightfully entitled to it. The BKs snatched it away from them because those BKs wanted status through the Brahma Kumaris. Those BKs wanted to act like great lords in and through the Brahma Kumaris. And that is what BKSimonb's behaviour is like, here. The Brahma Kumaris cannot claim that the “Source” is only theirs. That “Source” may not be theirs anymore considering the way that the Brahma Kumaris are behaving. Since the GBKs have made sacrifices to allow the BKs to continue enjoying their status in the Brahma Kumaris, it is the GBKs who are worthy to be mentioned in an encyclopedia and not the BKs. Anyway, I left the Brahma Kumaris because I did not want to get involved with any quarrels with the BKs and I am also not interested in getting involved with quarrels with the BKs here. I just wanted to say that if the GBK article is deleted, then the BK articles should also be deleted. They have to be deleted for the same reasons why the GBK article is being deleted. The BKs are only trying to promote themselves and their web-sites through the wikipedia articles.Gbkindran (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pari, FYI, the above post is another trolling sockpuppet of User:Lucyintheskywithdada, the BKinfo admin, and has been reported along with the others. Bksimonb (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bksimonb, why are you accusing the BKinfo admin for the things that the GBKs said. Lingkri, Karentansu and GBKindran are all from the Global BK Forum. Anyway, I accept all the explanations which you have given.

We all know that the BK murlis state that at the end, the Brahma Kumaris will be playing an administrative role. Editing in the Wikipedia and managing the articles that one has posted is administrative in nature. That is what the Brahma Kumaris would be doing and not the Global BKs. To play this administrative role, the Brahma Kumaris need their sources as a backing. This may be why those who remained in the Brahma Kumaris had remained there, and those of us who left, had left. The GBKs do not have an administrative role to play and this may be why the sources are in the hands of the Brahma Kumaris and not in the hands of the GBKs. Thus, it is my opinion that the GBKs should allow the Brahma Kumaris to play their administrative role with their sources. The GBKs should move off from this page with just the "Source". There is no more need for GBKs to come to this page to participate. We had left the Brahma Kumaris to remain peaceful and so we should "leave" this page and this article, in peace. Om Shanti (which means "I am a peaceful soul").Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pari, I can accept that Lingkri, Karentansu and GBKindran are not Lucyintheskywithdada and will withdraw the sockpuppet report as they don't have the track record of disruption that Lucy has and I should therefore assume that if they continue editing here they will soon learn to work constructively. Some of the comments, however, do seem to be very close to Lucy's style such as making unhelpful accusations regarding my status as a BK, presence on Wikipedia and supposed agenda of information control. I would ask you and your friends to refrain from such behaviour as it is not a constructive way of working. Also, it is not advisable to recruit friends to appear on Wikipedia to champion your cause, this is called meat-puppetry. I can understand that you may not have been aware of this before, though.

Peace Bksimonb (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what did you mean by "they don't have the track record of disruption that Lucy has"? I agree that I didn't know a lot of things about the rules of Wikipedia. I have to agree that I had directed ex-BKs and PBKs here but as far as I know, they did not contribute or say anything. I had also not requested them to say or contribute. My posts in their forum is still there and you can check it out if you want. I had not made any posts in the Global BK Forum because I think there are some BKs there. I am not sure. So I didn't want to upset them with the conversation that was taking place between you and me. Anyway whether, others make any posts here or not is not of my concern. If the conversation has something to do with me or the Global BK Forum, then I will voice my opinion, as I have that right. Actually, you and I did not really know each other and so we were very cautious with each other. But I think you are getting upset a little too fast, Bksimonb. Maybe it is because you have been subjected to "attacks" for too long a period.Brahma Kumari Pari (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Delete, and Speedy delete if possible. The issue here is this particular article, as it stands. It's not an encyclopaedia entry, it's a personal essay, full of WP:OR, and would have to be entirely rewritten to be suitable here. If someone wants to write a factual article from scratch, describing this bunch of believers and their beliefs in neutral terms complete with independent references, that would be fine (although judging from the OP's username there's a huge WP:COI and they should be strongly discouraged from creating articles of this type). By the way, Wikipedia is not a venue for squabbles between rival factions, and various contributors to this discussion would do well to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ka renjc 15:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an unencyclopedic hodgepodge of original research and unverifiable statements. Additionally: I read the whole thing and it actually reads like the kind of lunacy you read on Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap or Time Cube. At times I was convinced it's all a very intricate hoax. (While "this sounds completely insane" isn't a reason to delete, "this is so badly sourced that it's impossible to tell it from a hoax" rather is.) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the "Delete" tag anywhere. I would appreciate it if DGG could help me to delete this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brahma Kumari Pari (talk • contribs) 04:02, 23 April 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 All Saints' Church, Newcastle upon Tyne. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Willibrord with All Saints, Newcastle Quayside

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

This article is about the current occupiers of a deconsecrated church. I do not think it is sufficiently notable as an article. I have just added All Saints' Church, Newcastle upon Tyne complete with its history – there is a note at the end about the current occupiers, which should be sufficient. And also a link to St Willibrord. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is partly about the church building, and articles on historic buildings are usually kept, provided their existence can be verified. This article cites no sources, though. Moreover, there seems to be disagreement about the location of this church. I just declined a speedy for St Willibrord with All Saints, Byker on procedural reasons and discovered it previously had the same content as this one. In order to ensure factual accuracy, I therefore
Co-nominate St Willibrord with All Saints, Byker (This one is currently a redirect, and therefore in the wrong forum. Any suggestion on how to resolve this better is appreciated.) --Pgallert (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep whilst the sources on Google are far from ideal, it does appear that this geographical site exists. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The question is ultimately whehter this is an architecturally notable building. The article is at presetn porrly presented, but that can be corrected. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The building is one of five Round churches in England so qualifies on that ground; it is also one of the Grade I listed buildings in Newcastle so also qualifies on that. The article on the church is at All Saints' Church, Newcastle upon Tyne - the question is whether the 'occupiers' of the church also qualify for an article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the relevant content seems to already exist at All Saints' Church, Newcastle upon Tyne. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:30, 16 April 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) 21:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the church building is notable, that is covered by the main article All Saints' Church, Newcastle upon Tyne as noted by User:twiceuponatime. The 'St.Willibrod' part is the current occupiers, and they haven't demonstrated notability. A redirect to the All Saints article would make sense. David V Houston (talk) 02:15, 24 April 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. Discussion is a bit light on policy, but consensus is to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr.

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

Finley is manifestly not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. The article was only "kept" the first time around because of WP:POINT concerns. Eugene (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that said concerns still apply. ―AoV² 23:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I had nothing to do with the first nomination. I'm nominating this article for deletion because Finley would never, not in a million years, be given his own article in a print encyclopedia with his current attainments. Eugene (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With all those external links embedded in the text, this looks like somebody's personal web page masquerading as an article. If Mr. Finley has a personal bio on his web site, that's where this article should appear. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This source goes into some depth, this is a shorter profile and here we have a Christian author referring to Finley as one of the US's most noted atheists. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The third source you mention, the one that describes him asone of America's "most noted atheists" is a self-published book written by an unknown. I don't think it should have any bearing on this discussion. The newspaper article is better, but limitless numbers of people have been the subject of local newspaper articles--including me. It looks like the only serious source is a blurb in African American Religious Cultures; but can one meaningful source justify inclusion in Wikipedia? Think of the flood gates that would open for minor Christian religious figures and non-notable academics. Eugene (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 April 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) 21:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that no one seems to care enough about this article to defend it should count against its notability. Eugene (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seeming to care is a function of the interests of the handful of Wikipedia editors who monitor AfD discussions, which has nothing to do with notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to clear the bar for notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Marginal, but the sources do show a reasonable level of coverage which appears to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 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) 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake Preparedness Salt Lake City

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

Extensive crystal-balling, original research, and basically an essay or piece of journalism. Not an encyclopedic article, and I'm surprised this page has been left unnoticed since December 2008. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with some regret. Although the piece is interesting and well-written, Wikipedia is not the place for original scholarship. This reads like a senior paper from a geology major at the U. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree, it is quite well written and extensively researched. Unfortunately, that's the problem - it appears to be original research. If it's a WP:SCHOOL project, then we have guidelines for that sort of thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:48, 19 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October (Concert Band)

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

Not notable. Written as a class paper and desiring Wikipedia editors to offer constructive comments! Student7 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extensive original research and seems like a high school teacher's guide. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You complain about the quality of the article - but that's not what's at stake here. [12] lists a serious analysis of this piece as having been published in their volume 10 (2003). There are LOTS of references to it being played by various people. I suspect that it probably IS notable. (I'm not precisely sure what the criteria are for this kind of music.) David V Houston (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This piece may possibly be notable enough to justify having an article about it. However, it needs to be supported by reliable, independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have decided to change my mind and recommend keeping this article. I think it is likely that the subject is notable enough to justify having an article about this composition. I have decided to take a more open-minded viewpoint regarding the article in order to be more welcoming to new editors. That said, though, my "keep" recommendation does not mean that I recommend leaving all or much of the content in the article if it remains unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~ [see below] - First, incredibly (but also unsurprisingly) WP:MUSIC does not list any criteria to help editors discover the notability of musical works that are not "modern (20th or 21st century) popular music songs" (which means, technically, that Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) could be deleted...). Second, the work is most assuredly notable in wind band circles and is played widely (almost to death) by many wind bands—they just happen to been school bands mostly since the work is aimed at their level... Third, the work has also been arranged for other ensembles such as brass band and string orchestra: some of these arrangements might be notable, also. The article is well written but lacks sources: the article should probably be stubbed unless the sources are found rather than deleted. I'll dig around further, though, to see what surfaces from the hidden depths of the 'net before committing either way --Jubilee♫clipman 02:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that musical works other than popular music songs are simply not covered in WP:MUSIC, meaning that the guideline doesn't say under what circumstances they should be kept or deleted. But in any case, Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) should be safe anyway due to chart performance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL! Actually, that article stays because it clearly passes GNG. OTOH, articles on lesser known classical works might struggle to pass... Still not sure about this article, yet: problem is, I can't source it which pretty much starts to drive the nails in, I guess... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - One problem is that User:Panzak7 is writing this for a class. If someone else takes the effort to supply all or most of the citations that this article needs, then that could affect Panzak7's grade, since the instructor might say, "Well, I see you wrote the text, but you didn't cite any of the facts in the text, and some other Wikipedia editors added all the citations before you got around to supplying them yourself. You should have added the citations as you were writing so I could see that you actually did the research yourself." (Disclaimer: I don't actually know how the instructor would grade the assignment in such a case.) Thus, the best solution would be for Panzak7 to fill in the citations needed to make this a decent article as soon as possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I HAVE TO WRITE THIS FOR A CLASS. IN THREE WEEKS, I DO NOT CARE AT ALL AT ALL AT ALL AT ALL WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS ARTICLE. THIS IS MY FIRST ARTICLE AND I AM STILL WORKING ON IT. LEAVE ME ALONE FOR THREE WEEKS; THAT'S ALL I ASK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Panzak7 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzak7 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you, or somebody else, will have to get the article into better shape by 23 April (when this Articles for Deletion discussion is scheduled to close) in order to make sure it doesn't get deleted before the three week deadline. I recommend keeping a copy of the content for yourself elsewhere so that, if it does get deleted, you will at least be able to show your teacher what you had written before it was deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell you teacher that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for student assignments. This may or may not be kept as an encyclopedia article, but whatever happens it is no reflection on the quality of your assignment, so it would be extremely unfair if your teacher was to assess you on the basis of whether it is kept or deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure that Panzak7 is quite following the assignment correctly: Wikipedia:School and university projects/Shaping the Modern World SP2010. The creation of new articles is Exercise 2 and the assessors are fully aware of WPs standards. Panzak7 may need to re-read that section --Jubilee ♫clipman 22:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete (see comments below for reasons). The fact that WP:MUSIC does not specifically make reference to non-"pop music" articles suggests we should err on the side of caution and I don't really see why an article shouldn't exist if the piece can be shown to be genuinely notable amongst musicians, even if it is primarily used as a teaching tool. However, the article as is, despite being extensive needs significant work to properly wiki-fy it.

1. Firstly, there is nothing in the article to indicate that this piece is significantly more notable than a large number of other works composed for student musicians;

2. Secondly, the complete lack of inline citations (where practical) make the article quite unwieldy and do suggest, though by no means guarantee, original research;

3. Thirdly, there seems to me to be a large number of weasel words, particularly in sections like this one and even more so here.

4. There are also a number of sections, specifically 7, 8 and 9 that seem much more appropriate to a school textbook than an encyclopaedia article and don't really have anything directly to do with the piece itself. I think these just need to be removed.

5. Finally, since the article is so long, it would be extremely useful to have excerpts from the piece to highlight the specific sections discussed.

Also Panzak, please turn off the caps, they're not going to win anyone over! Fenix down (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The creator has admitted that this page is being used for a class assignment and that he/she doesn't even care for the article. In that case it would violate WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOTWEBHOST. So even if the article was perfectly written and 100% up to en.wiki standards, it would still be a bit dodgy to keep the article considering that Wikipedia's server space is being used for a homework assignment. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article article and its subject (about which I am offering no opinion at the moment) meet our standards then it should be kept. The reason for the article's creation is immaterial. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree: articles are created for all sorts of strange reasons but if they meet our standards they stay. WP:HEY applies here, IMO --Jubilee ♫clipman 22:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No vote here for now, but this song is played to death. WP:OR aside, there are dedicated pages for school assignments. Even if the author doesn't like writing or want to write said article, if consensus says it meets notability guidelines there is nothing wrong with it. Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) is in charge of the project, and seems very fluent in policy and the such. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 04:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the instructor in the course in question. The student writing this article was required to clear the topic with me ahead of time. I did some checking on the piece myself, and learned that it was played frequently in high school concert band performances. The composer is the subject of a Wikipedia article. The piece appears on at least one list. So I gave her the go ahead. The article is appropriately linked to the composer and to other mentions of it in wikipedia. and is linked back to the article. I have read the article, and it is well done content; the student is adding citations and such, but had to learn how to do it. This is, as are most (many/all) articles in wikipedia, a work in progress, and I suggest we support Panzak7's efforts, rather than undermine them. I suspect that the student does care what happens to the article after the class, but as of now, I'd like to see some gentle collaboration and assistance, the kind of wikipedia effort I have grown accustomed to receiving. Please extend to Panzak the same courtesy. I am well aware of the student's contributions to the article, and if someone wants to help her with sources and citations, I will watch that collaboration via the talk page and the article history. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the notability of the subject is questionable and judging from the way it's written, seems to be filled with original research. And after reading the article I've found it to be a high school teacher's guide with hardly any encyclopedic content. At the very least it would require a major rewrite to become encyclopedic. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 16:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had initially suggested erring on the side of caution, because I couldn't see anything in WP:MUSIC that specifically discussed non-popular music. However, having given it more consideration, I don't really think that the piece itself has been shown to be any more significant than any of the other numerous pieces the composer has written. As such, I think that we should consider that the sentence, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article" from WP:MUSIC can be appropriately applied to instrumental composition too, and as such, notability must be pretty much undeniable to warrant an article. In this way, any brief comments that may be pertinant can be made in the composer's article.

In addition I would advise that when your students are considering writing an article that they discuss it with the relevant wiki-project rather than simply with you. I'm sure you are providing valuable guidance, but by discussing whether a potentially unnotable article should be created with the relevant wiki-project, you can obtain consensus avoiding any notability issues. Furthermore, a lot of the additional complaints here seem to be along the lines of WP:OR. This could be avoided if the article was first written in a user page. There won't be such a problem with people jumping all over uncited remarks and it allows new users not only time to learn in relative safety but also allows them to refer the article to the relevant wiki-project for comment as it is constructed without others necessarily interfering in the actual production. Obviously everyone is entitled to produce articles, but it seems to me this is the best way of establishing consensus as the article progresses and creating a more informal atmosphere for editing. Fenix down (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the instructor, User:Auntieruth55, told Panzak7 (on the talk page) that she needed to add citations to the article, and explained how to use the <ref> ... </ref> format to do that, and added a {{reflist}} template to the article so the references would show up correctly. That was six days ago. Since then, Panzak7 has edited the article and added a bibliography, but the article still has no proper citations to support any of its factual claims about this musical piece. I think it is likely that Panzak7 knows more about this composition "October" than anyone else posting in this discussion, or at least she has read more articles and books about it than almost any of us. I don't have any of the sources she used at hand, and she probably does. Therefore, Panzak7 is the editor who should take responsibility for adding the citations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the problems with the article WP:SS, WP:SYNTH and, frankly WP:TRIVIA, this is clearly, per WP:MUSIC, unnotable. School assignment or not, material needs to meet GNG and this falls well short. Eusebeus (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - since this article is intended as part of an editor's class project, then the article should be moved to that editor's userspace so that they can continue to work on it to bring it up to WP's standards of verifiability and notability. Several constructive suggestions have been made above and several useful links have been supplied as pointers to improvement. I am also a little worried by the tone of some of the above which seems somewhat WP:BITEy at times... Could people please WP:AFG a little more often during these class projects? --Jubilee ♫clipman 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable enough piece to be played in schools everywhere. Use common sense. The policies must be followed, and it is verifiable, no one doubting its a real thing. The guidelines are just suggestions, they changing constantly over the years, nothing you have to actual follow. Dream Focus 05:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google news search for the composers name and the name of the piece, and you get plenty of results. [13] Deseret News - NewsBank - Mar 15, 2004, says Eric Whitacre's "October," for example, were both fresh, new works, written within just the past few years. It along with someone else's bit, were called fresh, and got mentioned. There are 107 results for "Eric Whitacre" AND "October". Dream Focus 05:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the thing is Dreamfocus, is that these references and google news hits only indicate that exists, they don't do anything to substatiate notability. Of the Google News hits, exactly which ones indicate notability. As I have already stated, WP:MUSIC clearly indicates that "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". Aside from the WP:OR and WP:WEASEL issues with the page, together with referencing, which could all easily be solved simply by moving it to the creator's user page and working on it there, the only issue here is notability. Say we started the article from scratch again and went through the article wizard, as far as I can see, when we get here: Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Musical_notability, we'd be in trouble, since:

I see no indication that the piece has won a major award;
It is not an official anthem of anywhere/anything;
I do not see how, as a piece specifically aimed at student musicians, how it can be considered a musical standard (or even that there has been sufficient time since its composition to alow it to be so considered, and;
It does not have a documented history of more than 50 years.

It certainly seems like this piece is played by a considerable number of people, but I don't see anywhere in the article or in the discussion for deletion how the piece's inherent notability is such that it circumvents the notion within WP:MUSIC that most songs do not rise to a level of notability where they warrant an individual article. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Fenix down. "Verifiability, not truth"... all the notability guidelines cite WP:V as the policy-of-policies (as it were) for articles in article space. However, the criteria for inclusion in user space are more lenient and those pages can be NOINDEXED. Hence my Userfy !vote --Jubilee ♫clipman 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- In response to DreamFocus, I would note that most of the statements in this article are not likely to be sourceable to most of the sources found via a Google News search, and most of the sources we can find via a Google News search are unlikely to provide significant information to support this article. For example, this article states, "October is a great piece to do with high school band students because it has the potential to teach a number of valuable lessons to students who have already had a significant amount of experience in band." I don't know where we can source that from. On the other hand, I saw one article in the Google News search that mentioned that the Presbyterian College concert band performed "October" in 2009 [14], but that's not the sort of thing we would mention in a Wikipedia article; we wouldn't list every performance of a musical composition in an article about it. My objection is not so much to the idea of having an article about Whitacre's "October", but to having this particular original research-laden article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have offered my services to Panzak7 and I added the {{rescue}} template to the article. I'll try to work on it tonight and report back --Jubilee ♫clipman 15:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Trim OR. The piece is marginally notable, but the article seems way out of proportion relative to the coverage it has received. I suspect part of the problem is that the students in this school project must generate articles with a minimum length of at least 50KB or else they probably get an unfavorable grade. This encourages additions of lists, trivia, OR, etc. In future assignments, it might be better to stress quality over quantity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few new references have been added, and the first one establishes notability, just. The article needs a lot of clean-up, but rises above deletion at this point. Quality and notability must remain separate issues. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Panzak7 has added a huge number of inline citations and new references. These may well verify notability: any one have those works and able to check? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that some of the inline citations seem to be to works that couldn't refer to this particular composition. For example, "With October, however, the moving lines are played by everyone in the ensemble; this will keep the students engaged throughout the time spent working on the piece" is cited to a book published in 1970, 30 years before October was written. I suspect that the book does contain some statement relevant to this sentence (along the lines of "students will be more engaged if the composition's moving lines are played by the entire ensemble") but with no direct relationship to October, whose composer was not even born until 1970. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually everything after the initial paragraph violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTHOWTO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't actually noticed the dates of publication. That's a good point. They can't even make passing mentions... Userfication still seems the best option, though, so that Panzak can retain her work and present it for assessment --Jubilee ♫clipman 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News search yields nothing and a general search yields stuff that has nothing to do with the article or the article's subject in general. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:26, 24 April 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) 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

APOS Systems

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

Company doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. Searching around, I haven't found any reliable sources that provide sufficient depth of coverage, but merely press releases, vendor agreements and information from related vendors. Google Books does provide a few hits, but only in books that describe the company's products, and don't provide coverage that create notability of the company itself. Cptmurdok (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely speedy delete as unambiguous advertising: APOS Systems Inc. has designed and developed a variety of stand-alone applications leveraging SAP® BusinessObjects™ technology that offer customers additional capabilities within the SAP® BusinessObjects™ infrastructure. Today, APOS Solutions are helping over 750 SAP® BusinessObjects™ customers.... They have 750 customers, and they imagine they belong in an encyclopedia? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 19 April 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) 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interlude(Book)

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

completely non-notable work of fiction. Ironholds (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cptmurdok (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable book. At first I thought it might be a hoax, but I did find a few Google hits in non-notable sources so it probably does exist, possibly in unpublished form. No publisher is identified, either in the article or in the Google references. Nothing on Amazon or other book-sales sites. The situation is best summed up here at weread.com, where the author biography consists of "I'm a kid who just wrote a book." Good luck to this kid, but his work has to become a lot more WP:N notable - and a lot more REAL - before it can be included in Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 22 April 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 G3 ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon Tuxedo

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

Though I am a fan of bacon mania myself, I don't believe this topic meets the criteria for inclusion. Though I see one passing mention in a local paper upon searching, I don't believe that the bacon tuxedo has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC) かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was an April Fools joke... See many refs on Google search '"bacon tuxedo" april' Peridon (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly speedy delete under G3 (vandalism/hoax articles), otherwise delete …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs}
Delete nothing in the article and nothing in my searches to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:10, 17 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly's sixth studio album

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

Unnamed album with no confirmed release date. Delete per WP:NALBUM and WP:HAMMER. I42 (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nelly. There isn't a lot of significant coverage of this forthcoming album in reliable sources, but there's enough to confirm that recording is in progress and that many of the statements in the article are correct, and I don't see the logic in deleting this rather than merging to the artist article, at least until there is more coverage, when a separate article may be justified.--Michig (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Michig that the album will probably soon be a reality and this article will have to be re-created, but the sources are not reliable and WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER are relevant guidelines. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER isn't a guideline. This MTV article confirms that the album is in progress. There isn't a lot that can be reliably sourced but what there is (probably only a couple of sentences) should be included in the Nelly article.--Michig (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I said "guideline" meaning that it can be used as guidance in this discussion; rather than "rule" which must be observed at all times, I guess. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay reflecting an editor's opinion rather than a guideline like, say WP:MUSIC or a policy like WP:NOT (which includes WP:CRYSTAL), and it's often wrong as it over-generalizes. --Michig (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see WP:HAMMER STAT- Verse 01:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even with the official confirmation of some album by Nelly is imminent, there is no evidence of the name being Nelly's Sixth Studio Album. Thus at best this so-called "title" will be a redirect... and an unused, potentially confusing one once the official name is announced. Add the appropriate information to the Nelly article, but delete this in all due speed. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nelly for now. There's no rush; once more information becomes available, this should be re-created with the actual title of the album as the article name. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:CRYSTAL balling. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:29, 24 April 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 CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bouq

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

Does not meet WP:N guidelines. The only sources covering the subject seem to be promotional, such as the band's official site and myspace page. Thundermaker (talk) 17:18, 16 April 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) 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guilląme Sebastian Furrét

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

As Guilląme Furrét, this was deleted twice as a hoax in September 2008, and salted; but in April 2009 it came back with the middle name added. User Joao Xavier (talk · contribs) has now tagged this one as a hoax, with commentary on the talk page. I have added on the talk page searches which show no Scholar or Books hits, and nothing in Worldcat; nor can I find any trace of the works cited as sources, nor of the "Encyclopedia of Portuguese Drama" which the author Economicssverige (talk · contribs) (who has no unrelated edits) cites in his indignant complaint about the first deletion. It may be significant that the title of Furrét's great drama, Gracejos em Você, translates (according to Google) as The joke's on you. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to the issues noted above, I'll add that the orthography of the name seems calculated to simulate Portuguese orthography, rather than being authentic in any way. "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3). The letter ą does not occur in Portuguese – and the equivalent of the given name William, French Guillaume, is Guilherme. The name "Furrét" does not occur in the Portuguese Wikipedia; the closest are references to the pokemon Furret. Furthermore, I think this remorseless vandalism-only account must be indef-blocked. --Lambiam 23:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources apart from the centre's website. Mention might be warranted in Eastbourne, but there seems to be nothing to merge. Shimeru (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastbourne Arndale Centre

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

Non-notable shopping center. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being both the largest shopping centre/mall in Eastbourne and one of the largest in East Sussex, I think that there are sufficient reasons for this article to remain? Deanybabeh (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does this not make it notable enough to remain on Wikipedia? Deanybabeh (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (pruning severaly) to the town centre section of Eastbourne whose town centre it is part of. I think the consensus is that shopping centres are NN, the exception in Britain being half a dozen free-standing developemnts such as Bluewater, Merry Hill and Trafford. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen any consensus that shopping malls are automatically considered "NN." Some are small and have had scant secondary coverage, but many are kept. --Oakshade (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are notability criteria for malls? DS (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 16 April 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) 01:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Captain Jack

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:OR. I can't find substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources (or any reliable sources, for that matter). One source is a chronology that 404s, which according to the previous AFD was just a passing mention. The other source is a catalogue. I really just don't see any way for this to meet our guidelines for inclusion. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe that this is the chronology mentioned above - it is indeed just a brief mention. The previous discussion ended as no consensus, I believe if held today with the same discourse it would be closed as delete. No real evidence of coverage is given - one editor cites an Amazon.com user review. The closing admin stated that if sources weren't found and added "over the course of a few months, then the matter can be revisited" - that was more than three years ago - such improvement has not occurred. I can find no evidence of significant coverage by third party reliable sources (published since or before the last discussion) which would indicate that the topic meets the criteria for inclusion set out in the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for web content. Additionally to me the dearth of coverage suggests that a merge to Mike Kazaleh - where the topic is already briefly mentioned - would not be appropriate. Guest9999 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 16 April 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 snowball keep because it's just going that way. Consensus seems to indicate that the page is more than a dictionary definition. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craic

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

The article is an extended dictionary definition:

any good encyclopedia article is about the idea behind the title words, but here it's explicitly about the word 'craic', and the usage of the word craic.

translating this article would inevitably leave you having to use the word 'craic', so it's not fully translatable, it's specifically about the Irish/English word craic. That is characteristic of a dictionary entry and this test is in Encyclopedia and WP:NAD, encyclopedic articles translate brilliantly because they're not about the title, they're about the thing, and the thing can be referred to in lots of different ways and with different English and foreign terms. This is specifically about the word craic.

Note that according to WP:ISNOT, articles Macedonia (terminology) and truthiness are word articles, but truthiness defines itself as being about being a "truth", not the word, and the Macedonia article translates fine because the word 'Macedonia' itself translates in the same way that other place names do, and is perfectly translatable without referring back to English words. So this is widely being misconstrued.

In the wikipedia the idea of a dicdef is not only a simple dictionary definition, although it can be that, but we obviously don't cover the rest of a dictionary entry either. Indeed, the policy at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, is and has always been, that a dictionary article that covers the meaning and usage or a word or term, whereas encyclopedias cover the thing itself. This article fails to do that.

It's not possible to simply extend a dictionary definition and make an encyclopedia article, whether something is dictionary-like or not is WP:NOTSIZE. It's often claimed that articles on words 'do enough' by simply being longer, anyone claiming that the 'article has done enough' will need to quote the relevant policy; because I've checked and there isn't one. The actual policy says the opposite. A long dictionary entry is still a dictionary entry. Therefore anyone claiming that it's 'done enough' is making a null vote.

The Wiktionary article is doubtless not perfect, but the Wikipedia isn't supposed to be just a list of dictionary words that are badly covered at Wiktionary; we have to have higher standards than being mere dictionaries!!! If the wiktionary article needs improving- improve it!

the word means 'fun'-but we have an article on fun already, so it's basically a WP:content fork of that!

if the Wikipedia was really about words we would have articles on adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, verbs etc. but we don't have any of those (see WP:Title).

The article is a neologism (which is normally understood to be defined in the last 25 years, this is much newer than that); we don't have articles on neologisms. Articles on neologisms are supposed to be written with titles that don't use the neologism, but that doesn't seem to be possible here.

Given the limited topic of the article (as defined in the introduction as simply being about the word) it doesn't appear that the subject and title of this article can sustain a proper encyclopedic topic, and I'm therefore asking for the subjects complete removal from the wikipedia, until somebody can write a new article that doesn't simply define it as a word. We have wiktionary to do that.

So I'm calling for TRANSWIKI of this neologism so that this material can be used to improve the Wiktionary as required and then an admin DELETE. - Wolfkeeper 16:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: even if there's material here which people think could/should be kept, that's not a non-delete criteria, that just means that material should be merged somewhere. Given the topic for this article that the authors have chosen. In my opinion they have to the end of the deletion review to change it, otherwise it must go.- Wolfkeeper 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —- Wolfkeeper 16:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as usual with Wolfkeeper's crusade to rid Wikipedia of articles about words. This is not a dicdef (despite his persistent attempts to be the sole arbiter of what WP:DICDEF says and means), it's an encyclopedic article whose topic is a word. And yes, words are also valid topics for encyclopedia articles, just like everything else that exists. It's well sourced, it's notable, it's interesting and informative, it's everything an encyclopedia article needs to be. Transwikiing to Wiktionary is unacceptable because - guess what! - it's not a dictionary definition! Wiktionary already has a dicdef on craic, and doesn't need or want an encyclopedia article taking up that space. Oh, and calling something a "neologism" doesn't make it one: the term "craic" has been around for centuries - nor is it true that we don't have articles on neologisms. We certainly do if they're notable and verifiable. +An gr 16:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No personal attacks; and the article itself claims that Craic is not centuries old. That seems to be your OR, you might like to not do that. This article does not meet the spirit or letter of the policies and guidelines.- Wolfkeeper 16:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article contains content that would be inappropriate for wiktionary. As Angr mentions, this is yet another example of Wolfkeeper attempting to impose an extremely myopic interpretation of policy. WP:NOT is quite clear that In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. I don't think Wolfkeeper has shown that this is not the case for this article. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I would be happier if the comments in the section 'Sociology' formed the center of this article, rather than being almost an aside. Most of the content is, as Wolfkeeper suggests, rather too word-centric for comfort. That said, it is not precisely a dictionary definition, and there are sources offered. It also can't be considered a neologism with sources dating to 1950. The 'Sociology' section and the first paragraph of 'History' are encyclopedic, if weak. It's a question clean-up, possibly re-write, rather than deletion. Cnilep (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than just a dictionary definition. Lugnuts (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this is obviously a disruptive nom; Wolfkeeper's own comments reveal that this is an attempt to affect ongoing policy discussions at WP:NOTDIC.
But while I'm here, this article is *not* a dicdef to begin with. WP:NOT specifically indicates that words can be the subject of encyclopedia articles; even if not, this particular article is supplemented with information on the concept, and (as I've pointed out) more could be added easily. So even if word articles were outlawed, the solution would be to rewrite the article to make it about the concept. The reason that hasn't been done is that after multiple discussions, no one besides Wolfkeeper has had any problem with the current setup. Either way, the presence of historical and sociological information on the concept make this not a dictionary entry. And it's certainly *not* a neologism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's completely failing to WP:AGF; I merely requested that the policy not be rewritten during the course of this review; particularly by you Cuchuallain, as this could be easily construed to be begging the question; I think the old version at WP:NEO is the agreed, consensus, and there was/is only agreement to MERGE that anyway, and I fully support that.- Wolfkeeper 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure Wolfkeeper, I'm sure that after months of protesting the article, it's just a coincidence that you finally started an AfD while you're involved in a related policy discussion, which coincidentally isn't going in your favor, and then coincidentally asserted that the existence of the AfD precludes anyone from editing the policy. Sure doesn't sound like stonewalling to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Violating WP:AGF WP:NPA WP:Wikipedia:Gaming the system generally only make you look bad, but that's your problem I guess. In the meantime this is an AFD.- Wolfkeeper 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep regardless of the questionable intentions behind the nomination, most of the sources cited are not about the term. Merely citing usage examples of the term and dictionary entries do not establish it as a notable concept worthy of a separate entry. That said, the ireland-fun-facts.com citation is the sort of coverage that we need to establish it as a notable concept. A search has revealed more secondary source analysis of the term/concept, such as this. It appears that notability can be established, as treatment of the term is more than trivial, and the sources seem reliable. Gigs (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the long list above, even if the article could be improved. The nominator cculd do well to read the article and to discover for himself that the article goes further than merely offering a dictionary definition. Do you hold something against words perhaps? Did any word ever hurt you? Cavila (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Show me a person that has never been hurt by a word and I'll show you a baby that died soon after birth. ;-)- Wolfkeeper 18:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom is using an unduly bureaucratic interpretation of WP:NOTDIC. The article is weak but adequate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Literally half the references in the article are to dictionaries; the first 5 references are to the same book- the OED and the 6th is another dictionary. This article is thumbing its nose at the Wikipedia and everything it stands for.- Wolfkeeper 23:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite Wolfkeeper's attempt to portray otherwise, WP:NOT states that "[i]n some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject." Quite hilariously, his assertion that "we don't have articles on neologisms" is refuted by looking at the article Neologism, itself a "word" article. It is clear that the community accepts that articles like Yankee and Thou belong on Wikipedia and that it is capable of distinguishing between articles which are dictionary definitions and those which have encyclopedic merit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPA. Note that the word 'neologism' isn't a neologism anyway.- Wolfkeeper 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An accurate observation of your views on policy is a PA? Hmmmm. And if you look at Neoligism, you'll see a list of articles on neoligisms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change Craic is an old Gaelic word which has been used for centuries by Irish People to describe an atmosphere of, or potential for fun, joviality and enjoyment. It has been brought across to the English language as many other words have done it the past when there is no simple substitution which adequately conveys the meaning or emotion. Craic is still alive and well in everyday usage in Ireland. My only objection to the present article is that it conveys an opinion that Craic was some how created by Irish Pubs for the purpose of self promotion. Surely the Wikipedia article should only state fact not opinion.- JerryFromDerry 17:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.197.118 (talk) [reply]

Comment: JerryFromDerry, you have as much a right to !Vote to this AfD as anyone else does. I note that this is your second only edit, and you have no userpage nor talkpage. I encourage you to start an account - it has many benefits. I would also encourage you to change your signature format: JerryFromDerry appears to be rather similar to Wolfkeeper. This may possibly raise some other issues --Shirt58 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I see no problem with this article that needs to be solved by deletion rather than editing. It's clearly more than a simple dictionary definition and is well sourced. Reyk _YO! 08:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly more than a dictionary definition, and with some work it could (should) be much more. There is a whole cultural story waiting to be told here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being 'Clearly more than a dictionary definition' is a null vote; there's no such policy anywhere. AFDs are a policy-based discussion, and you've failed to refer to any policy.- Wolfkeeper 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep on referring to WP:NOTDIC as the policy that mandates deletion of the article. Snalwibma is saying the article is more than a dictionary definition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not either or. Just because the dictionary wouldn't take it, doesn't mean it meets the criteria for keeping it here. WP:NAD doesn't define the criteria for a dictionary article; the dictionary writers do that. WP:NAD defines one aspect of what Wikipedia accepts. 'Going beyond a dictionary definition' means nothing in itself- many essay articles go beyond a dictionary definition as well; we don't take them either. There is no policy that going beyond a dictionary article makes it a criteria for inclusion, because that would be ridiculous.- Wolfkeeper 01:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you point to the policy that says an article that is more than a dictionary definition should be excluded? I doubt it, although I'm sure you imagine that it is so. WP:NOT defines what is not appropriate for inclusion. It is disingenuous for you criticize editors who feel an article does not meet that criteria for exclusion on the basis that there is no policy explicitly permitting inclusion. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - (ec) You're not getting this. As you put the article up for deletion, it's up to you or other deleters to come up with policy-based reason for deletion. You're quoting WP:NAD - fine. Most of us are saying the policy doesn't apply to this article. As I see it, Wikipedia has criteria for deletion, not inclusion (else, point me to the policy that mandates the inclusion of our umpteen Simpsons or other pop culture trivia articles). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Craic refers to an Irish cultural celebratory mindset. If you are going to delete "craic", you had better delete the entry for "Mela", the sandskrit word for "gathering". Which is currently not subject to a deletion flag. Mark Simpson 09:53 UTC 18th April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.77.134 (talk) 09:53, 18 April 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. is substantially the same as the deleted article so I'm taking the previous AFD into account as well Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits (Japan)

AfDs for this article:

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

The majority of the page is full of red links and only three blue links. This page is unnecessary and not needed as there is a template for those years. MS (Talk|Contributions) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm looking at the first discussion and it appears that this page is substantially identical to the version that was deleted several months ago. Is that the case? — Rankiri (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator. Is this a case of reposted material? If so I am afraid that this should be speedy deleted. RFerreira (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Other than the fact its sourced solely to non-English sourcing (a problem) and the fact that the majority of the entries are red links (not necessarily a problem), what is the difference between this list and List of number-one hits (United States)? They serve as a directory, and in the Japanese example, as an indication of how much work needs to be done to start the listed articles. Abrazame (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment It will take time to to slowly turn those redlinks blue. Rome wasn't built in a day. If the result of the first discussion was delete, why is it still here? Or was the article re-created? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:37, 24 April 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) 01:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemon Press

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

Non-Notable student publication.

Fails WP:ORG with No Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar hits Codf1977 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources: [15]. — Rankiri (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brand-new student publication, founded last fall and scheduled for publication only twice a year. No outside recognition. Small press run. I was going to say it could be merged to University of York but I see it already has a mention there, so a simple delete is best. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above is incorrect: it is scheduled to be released three times a year, with future expansion planned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.232.168 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — 92.11.232.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So how many issues, total, have been produced so far? The website [16] does not seem to say, nor could I find a link to back issues. In any case, two issues or three, the publication does not qualify as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 23 April 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) 01:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Parrella

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

Insufficient sources to establish notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Explodicle (T/C) 14:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH. Also lacks good sources. Papaursa (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:Athlete and WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 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 as CSD G3: a blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The day dallas encounter

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

Highly likely to be a hoax or alternately, kids playing around. Zero Google hits for the name except for this article. Author admits that it may or may not exist. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Reads like a hoax, and none of the names come up on Google with matching info. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM, WP:V. Possible hoax. — Rankiri (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete "Most of the cast have never spoken, and refuse to speak about, the events surrounding the production. Some even deny it exists." - seems like a pure hoax -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as either a hoax or a film too obscure to find any sources about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abosulutely unverifiable. No WP:V. Wikipedia is not for things made up.[17]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: As hoax. —Mike Allen 07:06, 17 April 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) 01:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highams Park school team 2001-2006

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

Delete. Unremarkable schoolboy sporting team, won some local competition. Fails WP:GROUP, contested prod. Unreferenced, notability not established. WWGB (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the inflated language used there is no real evidence that I can find that they were substantially more notable than other school teams. If they really were so exceptional then I would expect to find tons of independent coverage, but I don't. In fact even the school's own web site, which is full of promotional hype, somehow fails to mention this team. In short, no sources given in the article, and no evidence of notability found on searching. It is also worth mentioning that the author's own statements indicate a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholly non-notable team, couldn't find any coverage of their alleged all-time record-breaking exploits, and notability is not inherited from having a few players signed by pro clubs (and then released without ever playing first team football for the most part, it would appear......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. This clearly a non-notable team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the above reasons. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) p.s. If this article is an example of this school's educational output, I despair. "The school team is regonised national..." Ouch![reply]

Comment: I see that the school's own article claims several footballers as "alumni", although only one of the players' articles mentions the school. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources are able to back up any of the claims, so - if it exists, since it's not mentioned on the school's website - they aren't notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculous premise for an article. – Pee Jay 16:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot in good faith even support a redirect for this particular article, and I typically do support inclusion of high school pages. RFerreira (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly inherently non-notable. Big Dom 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 21:31, 21 April 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) 01:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Code d' Odalisque

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Code d' Odalisque

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

Contested prod. Proposed deletion reason (not by me) was "no assertion of notability". Prod removed without improvements. There are only 50 distinct Google hits[18] for the term, which is very little for any sex-related search. There are no Google books hits[19], even though there are a fair number of books on BDSM available on Google books. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any genuine third-party sources here. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism; I find no coverage in reliable sources, and removing the space does not help. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Sockets Layer virtual private network

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

This article reads like an advert - specifically, like a "white paper" - and is therefore not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article has been tagged for some time (against resistance from the article's original author) but has not really improved. Ijackson (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete as per the nomination. It seems to be poorly sourced (some parts copied verbatim from sources, removed where found), written like a press release perhaps because of this, and the lack of reliable sources makes it difficult to assess its notability. Google turns up this page and mirrors and sources of similar quality. It could really do with expert attention from someone more familiar with WP's standards than it's creator, but as noted it's been in this state for a while.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coatrack article devised to sell a product, dwelling on its alleged advantages of security and convenience: The main benefit of SSL VPN technology is that because it is user-based, not device-based, any authorized user can login from web-enabled PCs for secure, remote access of confidential files. The safety issues are similar to SSL-based credit card online transactions. ... For businesses, SSL VPN offers versatility, ease of use and secure, remote access to road warriors, telecommuters, partners and customers who can access the corporate network from multiple locations including home, client networks, public kiosks, and hotspots over varied devices like laptops, mobile devices and home and public desktops. This makes SSL VPN unique in providing anywhere, any device remote access which is not possible with other VPN solutions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The terminology "for businesses" is not used in the normal spamming sense but is terminology sometimes used in scenarios like this to identify whether a benefit is for the client (a person using the secure connection at a remote site), or for the organization that has to manage and pay for the overall network (however, the term "business" should be stripped out). I do not think this article is promoting a particular company and I do not think a description as spam is applicable. The article is certainly written too much like an essay and with too much excited prose, however the topic is notable and warrants an article: a Google search for "SSL VPN" shows many hits including Cisco, Juniper, Microsoft, Sonicwall. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 17 April 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. not sourced = not notable = not meeting our inclusion standard = delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Augmental homology

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

Contested PROD. The article describes a mathematical theory developed by the article's author over the last 20 years, but this theory does not seem to have appeared in reliable sources, which in this case would be peer-reviewed mathematics publications. Instead, it has appeared in a non-peer-reviewed University of Stockholm technical report (1994) and on a preprint website (http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0412552 2004–2010). The theory also appears to have received no attention in publications by other professional mathematicians. Radagast3 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, lack of attention in publications by other professional mathematicians indicates a WP:N issue as well. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we do not nominate an article for deletion a few weeks after it is created, unless it is incoherent. In this case, Gofor has shown his competence in the field through edits at related pages. Perhaps he should be given the benefit of the doubt to develop the page further, and show additional citations of his work. What's the hurry? In this case, the deletion of the page will most likely result in the loss of a competent topology editor. The nominating editor does not seem to have a record of contributions to mathematics articles. Tkuvho (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the first sentence - plenty of articles are nominated for deletion much sooner after creation than this. As to the last sentence, see WP:ADHOM. St Anselm (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asked to comment as contributor, but completely non-mathematical. Discussion on talk page appears to be indicate the article might be editable in a manner that meets Wikipedia standards.

Suggest: alternatively consider for article incubation, at least for as long as the PROD would have stood? --Haruth (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm very unhappy with the way this has been rushed to AfD, the instant the PROD nomination was contested. As far as I'm concerned, discussions with the main author as to how to improve the article in line with content policy and our house style are still under way. In other words we at the Mathematics wikiproject have been trying to engage the author, and the nomination here has been triggered in part by the fact that the nominator seems not to have full support in the wikiproject's discussions. Well, it looks like we have to go through the discussion of the notability of the topic, which is on the margins of what we'd usually include. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is helpful to ask the author to spend time rewriting the article if it is ultimately doomed on policy grounds. This way at least, if the article passes AfD, everyone will know that time spent on the article won't be wasted. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your consideration for the author, and your prescience is admirable - at least if it is based on an exact knowledge of the available sources, and a complete survey of ways in which the material of the article might in some way be merged or incorporated into the encyclopedia. But from the point of view of clarifying what sort of article there might be in there, without a complete literature survey, you seem to have done the wrong thing entirely. If serious discussions on pulling the article into shape, and finding references, fail to bring the article up to the level required, then a PROD is a reasonable option. Forcing the issue is typically wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I interpreted the author's comment "I invented this homology theory in the beginning of the 90:th and, unfortunately, I'm still the only expert on the relative singular augmental homology theory" as indicating a lack of literature on the topic. This was confirmed by a Google Scholar search. I am aware that you had concerns about the article which could be addressed by editing. However, the WP:OR issue is one which it seems to me editing can't fix. If and when the author's arXiv paper gets published in a journal, everything changes of course. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I got the dates mixed up above. The article was created the day before yesterday. Tkuvho (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article was created on 14 March 2010, though that isn't really important. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for expert input at WT:WPM around then, precisely because it was clear to me there were issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have had a few semesters worth of algebraic topology, and although that was a long time ago it should really be enough to get a vague idea of what an article like this is about. Unfortunately it's not enough in this case. If this article really describes the solution to an anomaly in algebraic topology, then I guess that the fact it is being ignored by the community has more to do with the author's writing style than with anything a Wikipedia article written by the author himself might rectify. Hans Adler 14:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no hits on mathscinet for "augmental", strongly suggesting that this is unpublished original research. Moreover, as far as I can tell from the almost incomprehensible description of them, augmental homology groups seem to be nothing more than a completely trivial variation of the usual homology groups. r.e.b. (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep until a better case is made for deletion. This isn't apparently WP:OR, but it may not be notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of this has been published by reliable sources (which indeed makes it WP:OR). It has already been alleged that the obscure technical report from the University of Stockholm constitutes a reliable source; however, these kinds of reports are often only minimally peer-reviewed, if at all. In any even, the technical report in question does not appear to have made any impact at all, since it is indexed by neither MathSciNet nor Google Scholar. In addition to r.e.b.'s MathSciNet search, the only hits for "augmental homology" on the scholar search are self-published articles by G. Fors, the apparent author of the article in question. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For editors new to the process, the above falls squarely under WP:N criteria for deletion (even though my post did not explicitly link to the policy). Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some confusion as to whether this is OR, since the author admitted that this was "original research" in the non-Wikipedia sense. But this admission, combined with the fact that the main article ("On the Foundation of Algebraic Topology") is self-published means this is WP:original research in the Wikipedia sense. Remember, since we do not carry out a peer review, we must only include content that has already been peer-reviewed. Oh, and to say "the deletion of the page will most likely result in the loss of a competent topology editor," is a rather poor argument. St Anselm (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. The author has a refereed publication at Fors, Göran: Algebraic topological results on Stanley Reisner rings. Commutative algebra (Trieste, 1992), 69--88, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1994. This seems to be on a related topic. The author should be given a chance to clarify whether some of the material in augmental homology may have already appeared here. The term is not used in the mathscinet summary, but it is possible that it appears in the article. Tkuvho (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly seems to be on a related topic, and the article author has cited it in other articles he has written, but not in this one. On the talk page for this article, the author says "The actual origin of the results is the article G. Fors 'A Homology Theory Based on the Existence of a ( − 1)-simplex', Tech. Report~3, Department of Mathematics, University of Stockholm, Sweden, 1994"; which is the technical report mentioned above. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a very obscure topic. Wikipedia isn't the place for the author to make his theory known to the whole world. If his theory has merit, then it will eventually gain citations, secondary sources, and only then will it pass WP:N. Ozob (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stated reason for the proposed deletion was OR, not notability. The OR grounds can be questioned. I have looked through Fors' arxiv postings by now. At some key points, Fors refers to the Trieste text for the proofs. I have the impression that the main technical arguments may already appear in the published text Fors, Göran: Algebraic topological results on Stanley Reisner rings. Commutative algebra (Trieste, 1992), 69--88, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1994, already mentioned above. Had he gotten a more welcoming reception here, he may have reworked the article with an emphasis on what's in the Trieste text. However, your point about notability is well-taken, as I pointed out at WPM last week. Tkuvho (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems to be hairsplitting. An utter lack of published references that address the subject of the article make it non-notable. The fact that the sole proponent of "augmental homology" in the world has also written the article about it makes it original research. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:53, 19 April 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) 01:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal FLOW

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

This software is not covered in an reliable sources, and as such fails to meet notability guidelines. Whpq (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has been tagged up for citations for almost a year. Appears as a clandestine advertisement, espcially with this type of tone. hydrox (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising: It provides several useful features like flowcharts from source code, source code and comment formatting - for better readability, function call and caller trees with additional information, file trees, class inheritance trees, comprehensive documentation, source code metrics and premium browsing. ... Crystal FLOW can co-exist with any IDE. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I most recently recreated this article from a redirect, in order to fix links from another article. It seems clear that the software verifiably exists. Many websites seem to offer it for download, but I don't see any neutral coverage that clearly establishes notability. I agree that the article reads like an advertisement, but the current quality of the article is not directly relevant to whether there should be an article. I was going to suggest a merge with Crystal REVS, but I see that has already gone. Bovlb (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Lots of software exists, the question is whether it is notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:52, 18 April 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. Shimeru (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palak Shukla

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

BLP Prod denied because there's a non linked reference to a newspaper. I haven't found much on google search other than social networking sites. Nothing other than the single indication in the page. Shadowjams (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it is now, it lacks references. The newspaper reference (an advert) does not mention her name (see here), it only has a picture. (It took a bit of poking around at epaper.timesofindia.com). Tried to find references with google but as Shadowjams already mentioned it just turns up social networking site links. Jarkeld (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beautiful girl, but no proof of the notability required. Fails basic Notability and WP:ENTERTAINER. Triwbe (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys give me some time may be until tomm, i m trying to hook up references......

Oopsalion (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The delete discussion will last for at least 5 days before a final decision is taken. --Triwbe (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations are misleading and probably made-up as per User:Jarkeld above. --hydrox (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i have added another reference, now this is something where the agencies/coordinators list the viable candidates themselves and the mentioned people do not play any role. There are many more but i cannot access them at the moment as i am behind a firewall.Oopsalion (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears from her modeling bio that she has appeared in some advertisements, and that is about it... doesn't sound notable to me. Hopefully her career will prosper, but... no article yet. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated info 122.177.81.89 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think u guys are biased with indians and cannot see anyone else flourishing rather than ur own self and ur countrymen, good keep it that way, i m deleting the article myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oopsalion (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Personally, I voted to keep several India-related articles in the last few days, including one that was a little dubious. I try to look at each article on its own merits, and I understand that articles from non-English-speaking countries (or in India's case, largely non-English-speaking) need a certain degree of special treatment. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, current version is straight-up biospam. Hairhorn (talk) 04:40, 17 April 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) 01:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krassimira Vidolovska

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

Delete No evidence of notability. The only references are a link to her own website, a link to another website selling her work, and the cryptic remark "Interview 23 May 2009", with no indication who conducted the interview or where the interview was published if at all. That reference to an unspecified "interview" is given only as a citation for the statement "She refuses to publish paintings she has sold". Google searches for Krassimira Vidolovska produced Wikipedia, facebook, Wikipedia mirrors, numerous self-published sources and promotion from companies selling her work, etc, but no evidence of independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the site selling her work is one where anyone can upload images for sale, so it is of no value in determining notability. Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, she is a self-promoting SELLER of Eroti-Kitch, not even legitimate art; it is shameful to keep her included in an Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.128.20 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 24.105.128.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is actually irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not censored, and our personal assessments of the value of the subject of the article is not relevant either. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't judge whether or not her work is shameful because Google images doesn't have anything and her website is down. Non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NON-NOTABLE by far, it is a commercial presentation altruista (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per lack of evidence for sources to meet WP:N. She has kindly licensed her work under GFDL,[20] though this should be CC-BY-SA-3.0 now for wiki. We are not here to pass judgement,vent personal opinions or insult people, only to apply wikipedia inclusion criteria. Ty 03:20, 20 April 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) 01:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet’s Scribe

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

Just a non-notable recent novel from a non-notable author, for which I can find no significant coverage in a reliable source. My PROD was contested by the creator without comment. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find significant coverage from reliable sources. Can't find any coverage, actually, apart from sites selling the book, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, self-published book. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 22 April 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 consensus is that the the subject has been discussed sufficiently in scholarly sources to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. Nice work by Ginsengbomb improving the article over the course of the AfD. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wemmick

AfDs for this article:

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

Entirely unreferenced, entirely original research, and there is no reason why this character should have his own article when other, more major characters, don't. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 07:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with your assessment of the article's problems, but there is plenty of activity in GScholar and GBooks to justify inclusion. The character is the subject of plenty of independent scholarly research. Your second argument for deletion (the bit beginning with "no reason why") isn't a valid argument. The outcome here should be to improve the article, not exclude the topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the outcome here should be to delete the article (hence the phrase, "Articles for deletion.") The page is almost four years old, and has been full of unreferenced drivel and crap original research in that time.

If there are plenty of sources, then you add some now, Ginsengbomb, to prove the fact. Because I'm not convinced. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 08:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this particular debate, but must comment on something said above: <>Actually, the outcome here should be to delete the article (hence the phrase, "Articles for deletion.")<> If you think that's true, start an AfD for Barack Obama or The Beatles. They would then appear right here on the "Articles for deletion" page, and for that reason they should be deleted. Right? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that. I meant to point out that Ginsengbomb's statement, "The outcome here should be to improve the article, not exclude the topic," is patently incorrect, because the concept of AfD necessarily entails the possibility of deletion. I think you probably knew what I meant, actually. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not "patently incorrect." It is my opinion that the outcome here should be to keep and improve the article. I apologize if that was unclear to you. It is clear you didn't know what I meant. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opinion. Precisely. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Everything in an AfD represents the opinion of a given editor. I think that was pretty clear. Your opinion is that the outcome should be a deletion, mine is that the outcome should be to keep and improve. Neither of these opinions are "patently incorrect." Perhaps we can move on now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to search results like this. I am not sufficiently familiar with Great Expectations (I majored in English and somehow managed to never read it...amazing!) to do much work on this article that would add value, but GScholar and GBooks seem to demonstrate quite a bit of coverage on this character. Certainly, this is primarily because the character appears in one of the Greatest Novels Ever Written, but coverage = coverage. I am not judging the article's current content -- that is essentially immaterial to the debate. That you think the "outcome here should be to delete the article" is made pretty apparent by the fact that you nominated it for deletion, so no further clarification is really necessary on this point. But thanks for that :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you, someone who claims to hold a degree in English Literature, are not able to use the available sources to improve the article, and it has been stagnant for four years, then it's time for it to go. If anyone competent can bring it up to our required standards (at least some cited sources is a requirement iirc), it can be re-created at that point. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll source this in a few hours. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three sources. Hopefully, given a bit more free time later this evening, I'll be able to rework the meat of the article such that it reflects available sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made several substantial revisions to the article. Most notably, with regard to this AfD, I have added some scholarly sourcing, as well as verifiable citations for a few items.
This article could clearly use the attention of someone more familiar with Great Expectations than I am (I've never read it), but I think this is a good start and helps to establish notability. I also removed some copyvio material which had been ripped straight from a SparksNotes article, cut heavily back on the "Relationship to Pip" section (which was written so poorly as to be practically incomprehensible), etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "when other more major characters don;t" is a good reason for writing the other articles, not deleting the ones we do have. Every character of significant importance to the plot or background of a famous novel should have an article. (note that I said a famous , not merely a notable, fiction. Theywill all be discussed substantially in the immense amount of critical literature., as Gingsengbomb has just shown here. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 18 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toplist

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

Delete. I am unable to locate reliable sources to substantiate this article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything that would confer notability. I see the term being used (very scantly -- only a few hits on GNews), but I don't find anything resembling coverage of the term/concept itself, let alone non-trivial coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep - currently being considered for redirect/merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topsite (www), which seems to be another term for the same concept -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ginsengbomb. The discussion that User:Boing! said Zebedee has linked to should probably follow suit, I don't see the advantage to redirecting one problematic article to another when neither one have the requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. RFerreira (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entirely notable and encyclopaedic subject. I'll see if I can't add some sources. Heather (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll change to keep if you succeed -- my personal bias is that this should be a Wikipedia article, I just couldn't find any usable sources! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On that very same note, I will happily withdraw this nomination if some non-trivial sources of an encyclopedic nature can be located. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google books search for this term [21] found no usable refs for this meaning. Pcap ping 13:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Looking at the article's history, it has been pared down to one line. Unless it is expanded and suitably referenced, it is not going to survive this discussion in which time is ticking on it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:59, 24 April 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) 01:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious dog man

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

Person known for only 1 (non-notable) event. Prodded per WP:BLP1E, contested by creator of article. Jarkeld (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, Vicious dog man, the general notability guidelines require more than the usual fifteen minutes of fame. I'd say it fails under WP:NOT#NEWS, but this isn't even news. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pensioner gets a run on the tabloid news for barking like a dog. Can't get a clearer case of WP:BLP1E than that. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. St Anselm (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fifteen seconds of attention have expired. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable per per WP:BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:BLP1E. Bleakcomb (talk) 05:53, 18 April 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 proposed merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Shimeru (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Garth

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

Unlikely to be expanded given there is only a few sources mentioning this person; most only indicate notability due to his death. At the least, a merge to a town crier related page might be warranted.

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added other sources to the article. They have enough other information that the article can be expanded. I think he's notable enough with the sources to keep the article. Silver seren^C 06:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear notable. Does this even qualify as a BLP1E? I don't think so. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't he notable? It is also not WP:BLP1E, as this article isn't about a single event. Silver seren^C 07:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage in reliable sources. Many people are only notable for one position that they've held or one role that they've performed. It is a big leap from that to WP:BIO1E. Sure this guy wasn't influential, but a number of sources have chosen to devote column space entirely to him. That makes him notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are independent and reliable, so proves notability. There are almost certainly to be references in the Mercury newspaper as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm thinking a mention somewhere in Hobart would be better, I doubt this will ever grow beyond a stub. -- œ^™ 15:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or Town crier, as the nom pointed out. -- œ ^™ 15:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would probably be keen to agree with this merge into both Hobart and Town crier, due to the notable information of him being the world's oldest town crier in 2003. This article is not going to grow anymore than it is now. Jwoodger (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news sources about him. [22] When did he officially stop being town crier? Was it when he died? Dream Focus 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, based on references added to article. There is no minimum length for Wikipedia articles, so this is fine just the way it is. Brad 02:32, 23 April 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 Consensus in this debate is that this topic is notable. Mike Cline (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AFD argued "keep" based on one freaking source from the NYT and by that alone, there was a weak keep consensus. The rest of the sources are from the unreliable Comixpedia or press releases/other primary sources. I see absolutely no other secondary coverage whatsoever. One source that's reputable is not enough to carry a whole article.

Also, if this is deleted, there're subpages that need to go too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added the AfD header to the subarticles since they are also effectively up for deletion. Guest9999 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as I can tell the topic lacks "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - which is the criterion for a stand alone article set out in the general notability guideline. Most of the sources currently used in the article are unreliable ones such as ComixTalk and various blogs. Others are not independent - the website for the awards and press releases. What that leaves is the New York Times source mentioned in the nomination. Personally I think that there are instances where one source can be enough to sustain an article - but here I do not think this to be the case. The article in question is not about the awards - it is about webcomics in general - and does not even take an in depth look at the awards. One paragraph, comprised of five short sentences, is dedicated to discussing the actual awards. There is some further discussion about some of the winners but it is done in the context of webcomics as a whole and does not say anything about the awards. I do not think that this is enough to sustain an encyclopaedia article and given that the awards have not been held for two years I do not imagne that there is much independent, reliable coverage in the pipeline. Currently sources do not even exist to confirm if the awards have been cancelled or why so it is impossible for the article to give an accurate account of either the awards over their lifetime or their current state. There is a secondary issue that relates to this AfD in that there are several - possibly even many - articles about individual webcomics whose sole claim of importance is having won one or more of these awards. Currently Wikipedia:Notability (web) gives as "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" as a criterion for a stand alone article; whether "well-known and independent" is the same as notable is - in my opinion - a discussion for a different venue. Each article should be judged on its own merits and based on the lack of coverage and the fact that an apparently defunct award for webcomics seems like an unlikely topic for significant coverage by reliable sources in the near future I think this article should be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT is always enough, if there is other evidence to support it, and less-than-ordinarily-reliable sources can do that, as they do here. That the award is ceased is totally irrelevant--if anything, its a reason why we should cover it, as nobody else is likely to be able to do better. The importance is further shown by it being in fact a criterion used to support articles on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for what it's worth during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar is a particular instance when the community decided that one New York Times article was not enough to confer notability on a subject. In that case it was an entire article pretty much dedicated to the individual, not just a paragraph. Guest9999 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously an attempt not to get rid of the article for this specific award but to get rid of all webcomics whose main reason for inclusion is that they won a WCCA afterwards. That there is an article in the “New York Times” about this awards is a strong indicator for notability. Also, the creators of “Girl Genius”, one of the most notable webcomics, find this award so important that there are three large banners for it on the start page of the comic. The WCCA is also recognized alongside with other notable awards by winners such as Digger. Moreover, apart from several mentions in other news articles the WCCA has even been mentioned in three books. It has also been the only award of any sort given to a webcomic in 2001 and during its run there has not been any other specific webcomic award (all other prices for “Best new comic” were part of other award shows). --84.57.173.204 (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links you give above is a describes the awards as "basically fan awards" and states that a description of them as ""just an extension of the usual simpering circlejerk that the webcomics 'community' is,"" is "pretty accurate" before going on to say that comics win because "fans of a comic that's enjoying a popularity surge can easily turn out in force and stuff the virtual ballot boxes" and "You can't take seriously any award developed by the comics industry or people on the internet, and the WCCAs have the misfortune to be both.". Frankly if this was taken to be accurate it seems unlikely that - notable or otherwise - the awards should be considered "well-known and independent". Guest9999 (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On top of the NYT article, there seems to be plenty of reputable coverage out there. I don't think the fact that the article needs some revision, as stated above, as an argument to delete either.SpaFon (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, When a "simpering circlejerk" is written about by the NYT and Comics Journal writer Shaenon K. Garrity, that meets Wikipedia:Notability. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another in a long line of blatant removal attempts. The article has been verified as notable. The only reason this keeps getting brought up again and again is the link to web comics. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 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. Shimeru (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3nity Brothers

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

Contested speedy (although I didn't nominate it) about a band that fails WP:BAND. Article created by the band themselves, who are indefinitely blocked. Erpert (let's talk about it) 03:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete as far as the conditions for the creation of the article - and the issues surrounding - including WP Band - there may well be good arguments for deletion - ~~however due to some issues separate from the COI and Band criteria I believe it is recoverable and sufficiently notable.~~ No problems if the tendency is to delete though SatuSuro 03:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't find any sources other than blogs though. And the sources given in the article that aren't blogs don't mention the band at all -- almost as though the creator just picked random sites. Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - its creation on 12 April 2010 triggered the group/editor ban the next day. It's spam, pure and simple. There is absolutely no reason for keeping this: should be group ultimately attain WP:BAND it would be far better to have an uninvolved editor start a non-spam, non-COI article from scratch. B.Wind (talk) 04:59, 21 April 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. 07:14, 16 April 2010 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "The Death I Dreamed Of (2010 film)" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Death I Dreamed Of (2010 film)

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

Non-notable film. Film is not yet released, it does not contain any notable cast members (none are found in Wikipedia), it is not released by a notable studio or independent producer, and the article does not include any references to independent, reliable sources so that the information can be verified. (Contested prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film with an article created by someone involved with the film who continues trying to use it to advertise and push the film. Producers are unnotable, stars are all unnotable, and the film itself is unnotable. The "sources" added by its creator are nothing but blogs and press release regurgitations, nothing that is an actual reliable source. Declined prod and speedy (promo), with creators statements about notability seeming to be "there are other article's on Wikipedia with out sources too". Large parts of the article have already had to be removed for being copyvio from the official site and other places. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Flat out fails WP:NF and per Collectonian. I searched with the Greek title "Ο ΘΑΝΑΤΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΟΝΕΙΡΕΥΤΗΚΑ" and did not find any satisfying results. —Mike Allen 04:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator blanked the page to try to "delete" it[23] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a speedy deletion template per CSD G7. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the one who contested prod. Mainly because of the creator was challenging prod in the talk space and Ghits the Greek title was getting and . This small report in Espress News (which appears to be a mainstream newspaper/magazine) interviews the lead actress about the film; the same news is reprinted here and here. Apart from these hits, other links which mention the film (which don't appear link blogs) are - here. It is possible that this film is notable in Greece. I thought about asking the creator for links in newspapers, but he got very defensive in his interaction with Collectonian and wasn't doing anything productive to source the article. That said, I remain neutral as i have no idea about the Greek film industry and the film's notability.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources found, fails WP:NF. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:53, 16 April 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Daw

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this artist. fetchcomms☛ 02:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cleaned up the article a bit. I think there's enough coverage in reliable published sources to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein's improvements. My only quibble is whether she was actually a Professor in the UK sense, which would automatically confer notability, or the US sense, which I think just means a teacher at a University.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST #3: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple sources added by David Eppstein.[24] Great work. Ty 03:13, 20 April 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 Tracy Beaker Returns. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Anderson

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

Contested PROD, child actor; does not appear notable, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:BIO, I have partcular concern over the BLP details repeatedly added to the article without references. Chzz ► 02:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: no reason to nominate Anderson and not Claudia Colling for the same reason. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, nominate her if you wish.David V Houston (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see any notabilityDavid V Houston (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns, where this youngster has whatever notability the cast of that production might, and where she is already listed in their cast. A seperate article about her is too soon. Her career is just beginning and currently she fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. If or when this changes, an article about her might be considered... but not just yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Michael Schmidt. The only acting credit this actress is known for is not notable outside of the country yet. Plus the article is not referenced at all. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:05, 24 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Kauzlarich

AfDs for this article:

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

Individual does not appear notable outside of the Tillman article WP:BIO1E. Only 3 cited sources, and only 1 actually mentions this individual (and that article is about Tillman, not Kauzlarich). Andrew c ^[talk] 02:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability for this particular individual demonstrated, beyond one-event mention, in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not very notable and can't find much coverage. fetchcomms☛ 02:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you look? I had no problem pulling dozens of refs from the Google News archives. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete subject does not meet notability standards - Addition: Since the last AfD nomination, there has been no cleanup or aditional work done on the article as suggested by that Keep decision.Rapier (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the original stub, it would have been nice if someone had bothered to mention the original AfD to me at the time. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable per WP:MILPEOPLE in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources reflect his nobility under "#6 Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat" -- Kendrick7^talk 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't decided on a position yet, but I'll note that MILPEOPLE refers to "a division or larger formation" whereas Kauzlarich led only a battalion. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. He is not automatically notable on those grounds. Although by virtue of Finkel's book I would think the unit he commanded is somewhat notable, and therefore he would be notable. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His command in Iraq during the Iraq Surge was chronicled in one of the best selling books on the Iraq War.[25] He is also notable as an early investigator into the death of Pat Tillman. I've gone back and added additional sources to the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:21, 21 April 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 Total Drama Island. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Reloaded

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

This article is entirely jumping the gun. There's a YouTube video by a cast member stating that recording is underway for a fourth season. There's nothing more confirmed—not even the title. If this were an album, it would get deleted under WP:HAMMER; the same concept applies here. There's not enough verifiable information for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the series. Total Drama, right? If it's not out yet, isn't this a violation of WP:CRYSTAL? David V Houston (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there isn't even an article at Total Drama, just a redirect. So is TD the name of the series, of which one season was TDIsland, or what? Not made clear anywhere. (Well, not anywhere I could be bothered to look!). PamD (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Total Drama Island until more reliable sources are available. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 18:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Donaldduckfan101 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JUst noting that this user has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. —Soap— 22:10, 21 April 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.

^[1]

Okay total drama expert here! The season has been confirmed! Name, the charecters, all of it, so if you are going to merge it with a site, do it. With total drama island total drama action and total drama world tour cleared up? Good

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By now it's clear that this is an obvious hoax, speedy deleted DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunder mifflin architecture

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

contested prod. Unremarkable topic, zero references in reliable 3rd party sources provided and I cant find any either. RadioFan (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability in question, no sources /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A grand total of 3 google hits for in-quotes "Dunder mifflin architecture"; 2 of them were Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Spinoff of the TV show that's not at all notable. Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, a blatant hoax. For those who have seen The Office (U.S. TV series), this is just a lame rewrite of its basic gist. E.g., on the actual show, Dwight Schrute, the boss's strange and loyal assistant, owns a beet farm; in this article, "Jose," the boss's "strange and loyal assistant . . . owns a yam farm." A totally fake show which has not helped "many scandinavian immigrant" improve their English. (Also, since Dunder Mifflin is a paper company, it would not also operate an architecture firm.) Glenfarclas (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX The lone contribution by User:Drews612 about a show created by someone who, coincidentally, is also named "Drew" (but his last name is "Schena" instead of "s", so room for some people to doubt a connetion), for a show for a "Scandinavian television program" that airs on TV somewhere (perhaps there's a "Kingdom of Scandinavia" that takes in Norway and Sweden and such). Resembles a joke article, except that a joke can be funny. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. RFerreira (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Brad 02:44, 17 April 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. Clear-cut G11 —DoRD (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go800

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

Repeated recreated article. CSD - notability and spam on at least 3 previous occasions. Recommend delete and WP:SALT GregJackP (talk) 00:21, 16 April 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 deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drivelest

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

Delete as a dictionary definition, per WP:DICDEF. I didn't see a speedy delete for this so I listed it here. —ems 2 4 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unequivocal WP:DICDEF. — Rankiri (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as drivel, and a definition not appropriate for Wikipedia. (Is this a paroday of Wikipedia inclusionism? It really is, pure drivel.) N2e (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:DICDEF and WP:MADEUP. Word to the (wise) nom; use a PROD in future. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dictionary definition for a word made up at school one day. No references or sources. JIP | Talk 06:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even worthy of the dictionary discussion. This article actually describes itself. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism, unreferenced essay, original research. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 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 as nonsense. JIP | Talk 06:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago equation

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

No indication this is an equation actually used by chemists or anybody involved with squirrels or lemons. Google search for "Santiago equation" results in seven pages, none of them relevant except for the Wikipedia article. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, WP:G3. Just take a look at the so-called equation. — Rankiri (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability for this equation demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are being really mean. Go get laid or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borondiamond (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, really no need for AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 03:29, 16 April 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) 01:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick De Leon Show

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

No indication of notability per Wikipedia's criteria. (I don't know if being really famous in Green Bay, Wisconsin, counts.) Also possible conflict of interest. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, I can get Green Bay stations and have never heard of this; definite non-notable internet star/pirate radio operator (and probably just has the range of an iPod transmitter at that). It's also kind of a boneheaded move to proclaim you use unlicensed copyright music right in the article. Nate • (chatter) 10:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely non-notable self-promotional article using Wikipedia in an attempt at free advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources and no other evidence that this meets notability guidelines. The "future plans" section made me a little bit sad.--Beloved Freak 12:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually I'm trying to figure out if this isn't some elaborate hoax. They are an internet radio station, with a main transmitter? 1 hour of news programming per year? This figure is also reused later in the article. I'm thinking towards a hoax, and even if not despite this it's still not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 13:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also live in an area where Green Bay radio stations generally can be heard. I don't understand this article. One hour per year? It hasn't even been operating 1 year if you believe the article. I see no reliable sources to establish general notability. Royal broil 02:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:11, 16 April 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. Shimeru (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Reserve Theory

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

A theory made up in university one day. Zero Google results for "Human Reserve Theory (except this article). Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Opinion

I am currently looking for more sources. I plan on updating and editing this article frequently until it is made perfect I removed names from the article to avoid lawsuit and ranted discussion for now.

I would like to rename the article from "theory" to "hypothesis" if i could, to lessing the potential problems (so that it is "Human Reserve Hypothesis" instead of "Human Reserve Theory")

it was a gengeral mistake on my part given that a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world and a hypothesis is a tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation, etc. --Phdwesjc (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the article: is a theory of thought, with no supporting or debunking evidence. Just about says it all really. Delete -- role^player 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you are 100% wrong. A theory isn't a fact, it simply has supporting evidence or a lack there of. I know this because I have proposed several theories in the criminal justice field. I would like to change the article title from from theory to hypothesis to avoid further debate about its validity. --Phdwesjc (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also wikipedia argues that this "is not a place for things that were made up one day", given that statement you have completely nullified many Wikipedia entries, even the Fermi paradox itself, which was "made up one day during lunch" --Phdwesjc (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, no matter how interesting. Thparkth (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is partial original thought, but based loosely on many other scholarly articles, if you wish to delete it, go ahead. I see a immense weakness in how publications are made here. I am quite reluctant to say if this post gets deleted I will never offer my services to Wikipedia again, if the rules have been broken, so be it.. enforce them upon me as you do anyone else

but I ask you this:

Does Wikipedia not believe that our greatest need is for the general public to be able to get better information, to have an opportunity to learn the better fruits of our day and age, to enhance our knowledge as a whole? If you deny this, than you have broken the very pact for which Wikipedia is constructed. farewell--Phdwesjc (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phdwesjc. I'm one of the many Wikipedia editors who check new articles to filter out the obscenities, vandalism, and outright nonsense that thousands of people decide to create in the English Wikipedia every day. I'm happy to state my opinion that this article, "Human Reserve Theory" is not one of those - which is why we're discussing it here rather than simply having an admin summarily delete it :) Still, the goal of Wikipedia is not to publish new ideas or introduce new terms to scholarly discourse, but rather to summarize and explain what is already out there "in the wild".

Both discospinster and myself have tried searching Google for the phrase "Human Reserve Theory" and not found any hits at all (except this article!). That's usually a pretty good indication that people are not writing about, discussing, or searching for the idea, at least not under it's current name (or under "hypothesis" by the way). Of course Google is not the whole sum of human knowledge, and you may well have access to printed books or journals or other offline sources that confirm the notability of the topic. If you do, it would be a really good idea to cite them in the article. Otherwise it's pretty likely that it will be deleted for being non-notable as a result of this discussion.

Be aware that even if that happens, it doesn't mean you can't recreate it in future if you can pull together some appropriate citations.

I do understand how frustrating this can be when you genuinely just want to add something interesting (and it IS interesting) to the encyclopedia, but notability is really the most important criteria for the creation of articles in Wikipedia. You might like to read WP:NOTE to understand the background to this whole issue. I really hope this won't discourage you from participating in Wikipedia.

Thparkth (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you seem far more respectable than the others, you haven't been short and spiteful towards me in the least. I have added one source related to the zoo hypothesis, and in the mean time I'm working toward adding more to this as soon as possible, I will return to campus Monday and the references will be greatly expanded then.

Also, this is a subject that has been discussed by many, even on well known radio shows like Coast to Coast AM, where physicist discuss these types of things all the time. Is it possible to cite a radio show as a source? that certainly doesn't seem reliable, thats why I haven't done it yet. --Phdwesjc (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If at all possible I would like someone on the Wikipedia staff, or yourself, to change the "theory" part of the title to "hypothesis", I do not think I have that ability as a normative user to perform such action. --Phdwesjc (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no usage of "human reserve theory" or "human reserve hypothesis" found in google, google scholar, google books. to article creator: the ONLY criteria for inclusion of material on WP is that the material is verifiably notable, ie, some significant measure of documented discussion of a subject can be verified by any reasonably competent researcher (eg a typical WP editor). no indication of verifiable notability is given in the article, and none is being found by us, the other researchers. if a notable radio show discussed this idea, the name of the person proposing the idea will have been mentioned (even if its just the radio show host), and if the discussion was notable, ipso facto someone will have commented on it in print at some point. that's the criteria. This is not a criticism of the idea itself, or the person(s) who first thought of it, first mentioned it, or the people currently discussing it. We dont wish to delete this article, we may simply be required to delete it if it shows no indication of notability by our standards. again, if this idea becomes notable in the future, article can be recreated quite easily.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I have cited another source where it has been discussed, I will add more references and "scholarly" articles as I develop my article further.

I'm gathering references as we communicate this very moment, if you will not allow me time to amend such additions to this article, choosing instead to delete it, then unfortunately, I will not place my research back on this site. I myself have written articles on this subject, but they remain unpublished, so you can see the contradiction I am faced with. Academically it would be inappropriate to cite oneself as a source, especially if those writings remain unpublished. --Phdwesjc (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Phdwesjc says above, there are no published sources with which to verify the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added numerous sources supporting the human epidemic hypothesis. --Phdwesjc (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You seem to be using Wikipedia as a place to publish your hypothesis. This is not what the site is for. The subject of the article has to have been significantly discussed elsewhere. This is what we mean by "notable". The references you have added do not discuss the "Human Reserve Hypothesis".

You said "Also, this is a subject that has been discussed by many, even on well known radio shows like Coast to Coast AM, where physicist discuss these types of things all the time." Are you saying that the radio show contains a discussion of the "Human Reserve Hypothesis" per se, or just a discussion of the types of things related to it? Do you recall the show it was discussed on? The web site has an archive of past shows here. ... discospinster _talk 03:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I'm not devising my own theory, adversely these are things not clearly defined in the human Lexicon. So when you do a Google search for the basis of its existence, then its more than likely possible that no results will show. I am a avid user of Google's services, but I am sure you as well are aware of how easy it is to exploit Google's search parameters. --Phdwesjc (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fails WP:MADEUP, WP:OR and WP:RS Only one gHit outside of Wikipedia, and it's not even a reliable source. If only WP:MADEUP could be a CSD category. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer wish to debate this, if it has broken the criteria for publication, like I stated before, do what you must. The fact that I could forge a blog discussing this material is far less disturbing than the fact that you would allow it as a creditable source of outside discussion. I highly recommend thinking about the integrity of this site's mechanics... --Phdwesjc (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, such a blog would not be considered a reliable source, as per WP:RS -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, IM DONE. Pot calling the kettle black Goodbye --Phdwesjc (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have now done some searching and I can't find any reliable references - and as the author says, it is at least partly WP:OR -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medicity

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

No indication of notability to satisfy WP:N. References provided are not WP:RS. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep sources have been changed to be notable and reliable. Colbyholbrook (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Colbyholbrook — Colbyholbrook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So far as the concern for this company not qualifying and meeting regulations to satisfy WP:COMPANY on wikipedia all needs have been met to show the company is notable. The provided sources as well as the overwhelming industry presence that this company has in its market provide the notoriety.[User:ColbyHolbrook]

I have cahnged sources to be notable included in new sources are: periodicals, respected/credible healthcare news associations, healthcare associations, other news associations of local nature to their articles, published reports/assesments from research/industry analytics firms, and government sites such as the U.S Patent office. Sources now meet WP:N and are notable. New sources provided meet WP:RS and are reliable sources. No Press release or direct links to site are used. All sources are 3rd party. I would very much like the deletion tag taken off of my article. Please respond on this page for anything further. User:Colbyholbrook —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising through and through: provides health information exchange (HIE) technological solutions to hospitals, physician practices, health systems, health information organizations, and statewide HIEs across the country to improve care coordination and collaboration....
The company is now one of the largest U.S. technology solution providers for the health information exchange market....

create software solutions that would..
Enable...
Empower ...
Enhance ...
Engage ....

These smart agents enable peer-to-peer connectivity and electronic health record integration. Medicity's Novo Grid solution consists of this patented technology.

This writing qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising, but the "references" are dodgy too: an "Industry Short List for Health Information Exchange Technologies", a "healthcareitnews.com" website, a marketing research website, a "healthcarenewsdirect.com" website, and a patent application. All of these look like media of limited circulation with no substantial readership outside the trade, and as such fail to convince of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferox (fuel additive)

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

WP:NOTADVERTISING JoKing (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinly disguised promo for an iffy product.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability for this particular proprietary additive demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ferrocene has all of the significant information about this additive, and otherwise it is a NN brand. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:28, 16 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the Sky

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

Non-notable album. All the sources are from a blog and the only other source is a billboard chart to the album's only single. Str8cash (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Noteable album by noteable artist. The blog is a interview notes from the artist. Its well sourced and a good article for an album that is not out yet. STATicVerseatide talk 21:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It still violates WP:CRYSTAL. Many artists have albums planned for release this year and many of those albums don't have articles. Just because it's confirmed doesn't mean it should have its own article. Str8cash (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesnt have any perdictions in the article all the info in there is right and sourced so it does not Violate WP:CRYSTAL. STATicVerseatide talk 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." Str8cash (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a move to userspace/article incubator. Not enough for an article yet, but it looks like it will be released within 2 months when it will very likely be sufficiently notable, so move out of mainspace until there are enough sources for an article.--Michig (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL balling is a waste of time. The only notable thing about the single is the fact that it was used as a theme song for WrestleMania XXVI. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wtf r u talking about it doesnt even say that in the article. AND the fuckin single peaked in the Top 40 how is that not noteable. This album is muderpuckin notable. STAT- Verse 03:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animation Dance Association Sport

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

Proposed deletion, contested without relevant improvements. Rason was "Non notable brand new sport. Only external sources are advertisements / press releases (via PR Newswire), not articles written independently about this. Fails WP:N." All 9 Google News hits[26] are press releases, not one single article about Animation Dance Association. Many, many Google hits, thanks to an apprently very hard working team which makes it visible on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, every user-contributed content website you can imagine. No independent information from reliable sources though... Fram (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find a single RS either. Hobit (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:16, 16 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

V.I.P. (comedian)

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

BLP with no citations. Cptmurdok (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable, no sources, BLP. mauler90 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage of the subject exists to source the stub .--Sodabottle (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 07:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's concern of "no citations" has been addressed. Allow expansion of stub accordingly through regular editing as apparently meeting WP:GNG. And no, I've never heard of this Indian comic before this AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. concern now addressed. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The second and third links are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. They refer to his partner talking about him in passing. I don't know the full context, but I get the idea that this is something similar to Last Comic Standing, and this was a contestant. I could be wrong about that, but the only source that is suggestive of WP:N is the first one. I don't think a mere mention is enough, but there maybe is more, hence the weak. Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a rip off of Lost Comic Standing, but as it happens in indian reality show "contests", they avoid eliminating contestants as long as possible and the season drags on and on, with the effect contestants become cast appearing in tens of episodes. And if they prove to be popular, they get added as regular cast in next seasons. The subject is one such - he was a "contestant" who won in 2008, but it is now 2010 and he is still in the show. In effect he has appeared in like a hundred prime time TV episodes(!). --Sodabottle (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy The references only reference one sentence which pretty much makes up the article. If what Sodabottle is saying is true, then why doesn't he add it to the article and reference it suitably? The article could benefit from it. I know Rome wasn't built in a day, but if people are serious about creating articles, they should userfy it to their namespace or sandbox before putting it live. This way it elevates such problems like this. Userfy to the creators namespace until the article is sufficiently expanded to meet WP:N and WP:BIO. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added and sourced his appearance in 3 seasons of the show (in 2007, 2008 and 2010). Note : The article creator was an SPA and hasn't been back since his first edit. I believe the sources added now satisfy WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 04:29, 24 April 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hightower

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

Unsourced BLP. Notability seems unclear, he has not won any awards and there are no sources to verify notability for any other possible claims to notability. EuroPride (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviewing over the google book hits and adding some of them to the article, I believe Hightower is a notable director. Has an entire chapter devoted to him in the book, Hollywood blue: the tinseltown pornographers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with apprecations to User:Morbidthoughts. I note too that Vibe calls him "the adult film world's notorious Ron Hightower"[27]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rauch

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

Article is almost completely unsourced. The only source listed is an anthology where the author's work was featured. Author's website is a MySpace page. Exhaustive searches cannot find any reliable, notable, third parties that have acknowledged the existence of the anthology or the author. Chromancer (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:21, 16 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Zimmer

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Heidi Zimmer

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

This arcticle looks like an extention of someones homepage. Where is the the evidence of notability? Mootros (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know enough about mountaineering to know whether deafness is a great handicap for a climber, but being the first deaf person to perform a particular feat can be notable in itself. For this reason I can't decide whether deletion is merited. Deb (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~, if you use google's news archive search, there's an AP article that mentions her and a handful of others--all are behind paywalls tho, so I can't evaluate them at this point. I'll try to come back to this one later, FWTW. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I can't find enough significant coverage to be able to claim notability, and the article has remained in a very weak state for many years. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 18 April 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Morgan

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

Directory listing of a completely unremarkable and essentially unknown actor, one which doesn't even bother to make claims. No sources, of course. CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How would he be notable? I can't find any reason why he would be notable so far. 7OA chat 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - above Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the IMDB listing sure doesn't look notable to me. David V Houston (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IMDb listing can be discounted as it generally speaking is not deemed to be a reliable source for our purposes. RFerreira (talk) 18:06, 16 April 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.

^ Insert footnote text here

[1] Insert footnote text here

[1]