Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 21

< 20 July	22 July >

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 Procedural close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandippal Jandu was closed as delete, and it's unclear what this AfD was supposed to be.

It was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 09:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandippal Jandu

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

Keep - We have far worse articles on Wikipedia, and less notable people with little or no references. This is fairly well referenced and from what I can see there is a hate campaign against this indidividual by one or two anonymous IP's. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:40, 21 July 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) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby (Robert) Bolger

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

This appears to be more of a memorial page rather than a BLP that meets the notability requirements. The several death notices are brief and do not establish notability. Of the other references, only Niamh O Dochartaigh's book stands out but I have been unable to find this on Google Books ~~or track down an ISBN~~(see below) (making this a likely vanity-published work) and Bolger's inclusion as one of ten examples does little to establish notability. The previous deletion discussion appeared to hinge on this single source which I believe highly suspect. Fæ (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL & the one mention in the book "A Way With Horses" is not significant coverage. Jarkeld (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ISBN for the book is ISBN-13: 978-0955510014. Source: Amazon.co.uk Jarkeld (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, based on your information I found this WorldCat entry. However, I find little information on the publisher (Ardcru Books) and no citations of O'Dochartaigh's books in Google Scholar. Fæ (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources. The death notices are just that, death notices, and not the indepedent obituaries that could be used to establish notability. This leaves only the book. The website indicates one should email the author to order the book. And as pointed out in the previous AFD, the link to the publisher's blog is actually also the author's blog and so we essentially have a source which is self-published. This doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was created 2 weeks after his death and reads like a memorial, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The death notices just confirm his death not his notability. Snappy (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Lionel (talk) 04:33, 23 July 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) 01:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne (criminal psychopath)

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

Suspected hoax, I question the notability, the sourcing is at best problematic, and it is an entirely negative article about a living person. This really needs to go. Courcelles (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't make sense. If the subject is a convicted felon, his full name should be a matter of public record, whereas this article treats his surname as a secret. (If someone served years in prison for child molestation, how much more damage could his reputation suffer for getting a perfect score on a psychopathy test? And how could his identity be kept secret if we have a picture of him in the article?) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, the article makes no sense. Undoubtedly there would have been some media releases including his full name, given that he was a repeat offender. It seems fantastically unlikely that four separate incidents of pedophilia would net a convicted murderer only 5 to 10 years, and that not even in a federal prison. Continually breaking conditional releases from prison (or doing so even once) would also drastically reduce the likelihood of you getting a conditional release. Taking this and and the references (those I can investigate don't really work as references) together, this article is obviously a hoax. I have absolutely no idea who that picture is of, but it should probably be deleted too. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost certainly a hoax, in any event major WP:V issues. Nsk92 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. This is a hoax or an unsourced negative BLP. Either way, it has to go. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

The subject was featured on two television programmes in the UK, which I have on VHS. The first was on Channel 4 as part of the Equinox series in 2000. I found a transcript of the episode at Dr. Hare's website and used it, along with the network and air date, as a cite. The following year, he appeared, albeit more sparingly, on a BBC documentary about psychopathy: I can't source a transcript, and writing it out myself would likely be considered OR, so I simply provided the network and air date.

The picture of Wayne was a police mugshot from 1989 as it appeared on Equinox. The information on his background and crimes was gathered from both documentaries. In the New Zealand Herald cite, Dr. Hare states that the number of 40/40 psychopaths is very rare. As of 2001, Wayne was the only "prototypical" psychopath to appear on television, mainly because he was so articulate and "normal", which gave a real insight into how charming psychopaths can be. His surname was not provided on either documentary, and I can't source any articles on him, perhaps because "Wayne" could have been a fake name for the purpose of the documentary. But the man indeed exists and talks candidly about his crimes: he most certainly wasn't an actor. His unmistakably meth-addled face underscores his possession charges.

Falcon Darkstar Momot: "It seems fantastically unlikely that four separate incidents of pedophilia would net a convicted murderer only 5 to 10 years, and that not even in a federal prison. Continually breaking conditional releases from prison (or doing so even once) would also drastically reduce the likelihood of you getting a conditional release." The sentence was 5 to 20 years, rather than 5 to 10. He carried out the murder of his brother and the majority of his crimes as a juvenile. The BBC documentary didn't actually state whether he was convicted of crystal meth possession, but, that as an adult, he was charged.

I'm not pushing for the article to be kept, I'm simply pointing out that it wasn't a hoax. I felt that the subject was notable for achieving such a rare score and appearing on television. LunaChangue (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I thought this was relevant, my comment on the DYK and subsequent one to investigate:

I don't understand why the transcript varies between calling him "Wayne", "Prisoner", "Man in glasses". Although I see through a youtube video that he seems to have said all this, I find it bizarre that it was uploaded a few days ago. Also, when was the last time you saw a mughsot that allowed the criminal to wear sunglasses? How come he has a seemingly recent mugshot, isn't that usually upon the arrest? And the equinox website here, doesn't seem to list an episode named The psychopathic mind, and there doesnt seem to be any airdate for an episode listed in the one in the ref's.. There is one which features Blare (I meant Hare here) on a diff date under a diff name, which I imagine was the intention. In the video, it lists Vermont State Penitentiary, which is fine if they dont want to specify exactly which prison he's in, in Vermont, but a google search gives 6 results only, as if no one has ever called it that in the past before for any reason... one is related to wiki-Wayne and the other youtube-Wayne. I know AGF policy, but no where in either accessible or watchable ref's does it say his claim to fame, having a 40/40 on that test, so I assume it must be on the BBC video. All in all, ref 1 has nothing to do with Wayne, ref 2 is the transcript and it only mentions the name Wayne in particular once or twice for quotes. Yet, ref 3 is to an episode that isn't listed on the TV shows website, and is a non-aired date, again I may have found a link and although it mentions Dr. Hare, it does not mention anything about Wayne in it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC) PS, I apologize if this is a legitimate article but poorly ref'd.[reply]

After re-reading Hare's transcript, I see that he does mention that Wayne got a 40 on the examination, and I apologize for saying it didn't. At this point, I do not think it is a question of a hoax, but rather notability. Luna, may I ask if that was you who posted the video on youtube? I would find it a little bizarre if it weren't. And on a side note, I found the video to be almost not believable (and I apologize if that's not the case), between the sirens every 30 seconds, and the fact that he was walking around freely in the snow, and the music made me feel all symathetic towards him, as we walked into the horizon, ha. Either way, I don't want to dissuade a new editor from continuing to edit. Can you find anything else about him? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Theornamentalist on this one. Even if this is not a hoax, there are still major WP:V problems, not to mention notability issues. Without the video available (for free or for purchase) from the show's website or from the BBC, there is no way to verify the authenticity of the video posted on Youtube or to find out where exactly it came from. I also find a number of aspects to this story almost impossible to believe. In particular, nobody gets to have their mugshot taken while wearing sunglasses. Now the article's creator says that it is not even certain if Wayne is the subject's name at all, and the first name was the only available identifier of any kind here. Even under the most lenient view of the sources, there is not enough information available to properly identify the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did upload the video; after reading Hare's Without Conscience, I have a renewed interest in the subject. Although Youtube can't be used as a ref, I thought it would serve as an unofficial ref. As for the sounds, I put those in myself for comedy effect. And there's barbed wire around the top of the high fence as he walks around the exercise yard (it was filmed in January 2000, which explains the snow). Whether or not Wayne is notable for Wikipedia, he's still quite interesting, therefore I upped a video. I don't know what the deal is with the mugshot, but that's how it was presented in the documentary. I must confess that the BBC documentary's date was an approximation, but it doesn't really matter now anyway. I'd upload it to Youtube right now, but it'd be pointless as it can't be used for support, nor could a transcript written by myself. And Wayne is featured in it for all of about 45 seconds as a "north eastern" criminal. I'm beginning to think that Wayne isn't his name at all, which would make sense. I do not personally know "Wayne", nor am I on a crusade to make the guy famous... he simply seemed notable for his score and tv appearances. I thought it would be interesting for those with an interest in psychology. LunaChangue (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is admittedly an interesting subject, although I would say a lack of references, with the only viable one being the transcript from Hare's website, that some content should be merged with Hare Psychopathy Checklist, possibly under a notable evaluations section or something. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:54, 24 July 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. If anyone wants it in their userspace, let me know. Courcelles (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum (Disturbed song)

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

Article for new-released single that has not yet gained notability. See WP:NSONG | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:MUSIC explicitly states that failing to meet notability guidelines doesn't necessarily make something eligible for deletion. The mentioned guideline (A7) doesn't apply to creative works. Davidjcobb (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Notability is not inherited, and the creator of the article has never bothered to make any sort of claim other than that "it's a single, and it's by this band I like, and you can buy it at iTunes!" none of which constitutes an assertion, much less evidence, of any kind of notability. It's bad enough that we have this defacto bias that any album released in the US or UK by a "notable" band is inherently notable; now we've got a tendency to make the same assumption about singles! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability, not even a claim to notability... and it doesn't matter whether it meets A7 or not (or A9, which is the most relevant CSD), this is AFD, not speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The song itself doesn't have enough notability to deserve an article. Even if it's from a band like Disturbed, even if it was from Michael Jackson, a song itself doesn't deserve an article unless it haves enough notability to have one. (For example, being played in a famous film.) -Rambard (talk) 12:55, 26 July 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) 01:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teach For Us

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

Missclark77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-profit organisation. No evidence of notability beyond blogs and such. Fails WP:ORG. Declined at Articles for creation. SPA creator. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically a blog-hosting site. Claims to be a registered public charity (and solicits for donations), but no information is given, either in the article or at the Teach For Us website, about its charitable status, location, board of directors, etc. No reliable sources found. The article claims that one of its blogs was mentioned in the LA Times, but the link is dead so can't evaluate whether it was "significant coverage" (doubt it). --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 27 July 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) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IN Food Marketing & Design

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

Infoodmktg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Marketing company. No evidence of notability. Some coverage but not enough to pass WP:ORG. Simply advertising. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Unambiguous advertising: the key attributes the company espouses: Integrity, Insights, Involvement, Intelligence and Ingenuity. No indication of historical, cultural, or technical significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The kinds of passing mention do not pass notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 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) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sudlow

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

Aside from one painting in a small museum, there doesn't appear to be support for significance or notability. JNW (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about him. I can find no indication of significant exhibitions (or any exhibitions). The inclusion of his work at the Hilo Art Museum really isn't notable as it not at all clear the the museum is notable, or for that matter, ever really got itself operational. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN doesn't seem encyclopedic to me...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was essentially an amateur artist whose only claim for notability is one work in a small museum. It should be noted that the website for the museum does not exist. There are no references to back up any of the claims. Failing any references turning up, this is a delete I'm afraid. freshacconci talktalk 02:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be retained articles need sufficient reliable references to meet WP:N. They do not appear to exist in this case. Ty 05:53, 24 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kvelertak

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

Non-notable band. Although there appears to be some buzz about them in the blogosphere, there is no coverage in reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their self-titled album debuted at the third place of VG-lista [1][2]. I have also found a lot of non-trivial coverage in Norwegian newspapers. Two of those articles are listed in the article as external links. BBC Radio One has had their single "Mjød" as Single Of The Week two weeks in a row.[3] Rettetast (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band seems to satisfy our notability criteria for musical artists. __meco (talk) 17:32, 22 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game On (U.S. radio show)

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

Olgpa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Radio show on dating. Non-notable show as can be seen by lack of substantial coverage from multiple sources. Existing sources are very weak. Was created by suspected paid editor; see user's talk page and this. Has also created an entire series of similar articles relating to Harbinger & friends etc, as part of their advertising campaign. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks notability and was created dubiously. Them From Space 03:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 22 July 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) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avid NewsCutter

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

Was tagged with a hangon on a PROD, which I take to mean PROD is contested, thus bringing to AfD. PROD rationale was "non-notable product, no 3rd party sources" Ged UK 20:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP -Drdisque (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 July 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) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Powell

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

Unremarkable actor, fails WP:BIO. References provided are either primary sources such as the movie promotional website, press releases, a promotional interview likely created by the movie producers, or a website of unclear reliability. RadioFan (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete no individual notability shown. (I do like some of a review of the film he has been in. "Standing Ovation is a spiritually bankrupt, morally reckless, ethically unhinged and emotionally vacant musical comedy about a group of tweenies who cant act, sing or convincingly lip-sync." (Chicago Daily Herald, 16 July 2010, "No Ovation for shallow kids musical" by Dann Gire). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The article needs work and a rename isn't out of the question, but it's pretty clear where consensus is with this. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is simply a directory of museums (and displays) of static displayed F-4's and the F-4's on display. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added a notice of this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is a split-off section of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and as such complies with the consensus guidelines on these sections at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_on_display. Furthermore it has been the subject of discussion on renaming recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#List_of_surviving_F-4_Phantom_IIs and also Talk:List_of_surviving_F-4_Phantom_IIs where the consensus was that the article should be retained, but renamed to F-4 Phantom IIs on display to better reflect the WikiProject Aircraft guidelines on naming. - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not guidebook where you can see something. No encyclopedia value. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP This article was the subject of considerable interest in the past and had been situated in the host article, McDonnell F-4 Phantom II and this was the compromise decision arrived at by consensus with the aviation group. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is not a directory. Probably should be renamed to "List of F-4 Phantom IIs on display" though. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - to reflect content. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Fnlayson. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:SIZE, the list is too large to accommodate in the parent article, therefore it should remain as a stand-alone list. Mjroots (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not suggest that this should be merged/restored into the main article. It is listed for deletion. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - you misunderstand me. There is no way this is going to get deleted. At best, it would be merged, but that is not going to happen on size grounds, so therefore it should remain as a stand-alone list. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —76.66.193.119 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above and agree with rename suggestion as discussed at length in the project for all articles of this type. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWBALL- this is going nowhere and should be stopped now. Bzuk (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ahunt. -SidewinderX (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everbody else who has said keep. Could do with some more referencing and a tidy up but that is no reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - but a remane is a good idea. I think Fnlayson name idea works Mlpearc powwow 13:24, 22 July 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) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialprise

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

Contested speedy deletion, not mine. A non-notable neologism, breathlessly and meaninglessly defined in a way that resists clarification through its very lack of meaning:

a convergence of social media and business applications, and emerge as a mashup of both the information and user experience of these previously separate universes. Socialprise applications enable organizations to discover and distill relevant information from structured and unstructured data sources and present it in the meaningful context of specific business processes. They address both content aggregation, presentation, and collaborative functionality for organization-wide applicability.

Not sure what any of this means, but I gather it has something to do with making money fast on the Internet. The "references" are actually to blogs, and at least one of the external links is to a blog crowing about the promotion of this term as a buzzword. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Delete This is a dictionary definition of a neologism that does not belong here. Miami33139 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The other articles named in the discussion were never tagged for deletion, but feel free to nominate them separately. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of present-day nations and states

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

Delete. Does not add anything that the category system already does. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the reason for deletion is invalid - see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates; according to that guideline, redundancy between lists and the category system is not against the rules, is not harmful, but is beneficial and encouraged. Compare Lists by country and Category:Lists by country. Note that lists present information in ways that categories do not, they can display all of the relevant information on the same page (reducing clicks, while categories are forced to branch into further categories), and lists may provide additional information imbedded in each list which categories cannot. Lists also provide redlinks to show what isn't covered yet, which categories are incapable of doing. Also, this list is a member of a set of similar lists:

The Transhumanist 18:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is a poor topic for a list, and is easily handled by the existing category system. The article formatting is also exceedingly poor (such as the flags, alphabetical layout). This article is a time sink and redundant, with no notability or utility of its own. Although redundancy is not "against the rules", they should in some way be complimentary. This is just a poorly formatted version of the category which requires manual updating and lacks sources. Verbal chat 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. As navigational aids, there are advantages to both categories and lists. Categories "update" themselves every time an article is categorized; on the other hand, a list can show, at a glance, the absence of an article, which is an important part of any project. The Architecture of Afghanistan is no less notable than the Architecture of Argentina, but nobody has yet written about the former. I admit that I think that little flags are overused, but they're not inappropriate in this case. I'm not sure what the problem is with "alphabetical layout", or what the improvement would be, since that's what one would expect from an index. Mandsford 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per the comment below, article namespace articles are not for carrying out project tasks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. While I appreciate that a non-trivial amount of work has been invested in these articles, this sort of list is precisely why we have categories. Lists certainly have their uses, but manual duplication of categories without additional content is a bit off. The Transhumanist and Mandsford make a good point about the redlinks; since I would argue that each of the linked articles is inherently notable, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles or at the appropriate WikiProject. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, projectify them to the approp WikiProject. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a perfect solution. Verbal chat

I would welcome the redlinks (without flags, bolds, and in a compact form or a subpage) to WP:WikiProject Architecture#New articles, where the need for some of these articles has been already identified. --Elekhh (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These are redundant to categories and to navigation templates (which include the redlinks). They are inelegant. Abductive (reasoning) 08:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redundant to categories, which are self-maintaining. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - reproduce categories with little or no additional information. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 23:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All redundant. Can be redirected to categories (i.e. category:History by country, etc) Maashatra11 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Wiki Shuttle

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

I do not feel this article meets the general notability guideline. Swarm^Talk 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Need notability? "The shuttle's name inspired Ward Cunningham to call his new website technology "WikiWikiWeb", from which the concept of wiki software, including Wikipedia, derives." This is ENORMOUSLY documented. Let it snow... Carrite (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly the argument I was expecting. I already understood that, and the Wiki article mentions that. However, I couldn't find significant coverage that would lead me to believe that this shuttle service meets the general notability guideline. Do reliable sources address this shuttle directly in detail? I couldn't confirm that. The fact that the name of this company inspired Cunningham is, by itself, a triviality. Swarm^Talk 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for the impact of the name on the "wiki" culture and the internet LHOON (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite and LHOON. The wiki's history made this bus service not merely notable, but actually thoroughly noted in media. For example, several books about Wikipedia have been published, and while I haven't read them all, I'm sure they all mention the WikiWiki bus service. Plus, the article is a reasonable and informative text, sourced and encyclopedic in nature. I think deletion's entirely inappropriate. --Waldir ^talk 07:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Even if they mention the bus service, that doesn't make it notable. Swarm^Talk 22:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. article has been around forever.Tlatseg (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to keep this article anymore then just being created would be a reason to delete. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not going to bold the word "keep" here because the nominator has a point. Simply being what inspired the name of the first wiki doesn't cut it as far as WP:N is concerned. However, if there ever was a situation where we could IAR and keep an article then this would be it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. I added a few more references. The references at the article do not just "mention" the bus service, they are ABOUT the service. That's not even counting the ten pages of hits at Google Books [4]. This shuttle service is a part of our history, folks. Show a little respect. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 28 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CiviCRM

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

Contested proposed deletion. This non-notable product describes itself as customer relationship management (CRM) software. What it is might be slightly more significant: it's apparently software targeted at fundraising concerns for generating the sort of automated appeals for more that anyone who gives to charity will be punished with.

Despite the reference to the Wikimedia blog, I don't see any real notability for this product. As back office software for fund raising concerns, it has a very small market and is unlikely to be technically important in the history of the field, and of course it's necessary to throw in the chundersome "customer relationship management" TLA. References are to the Wikimedia blog, a business using the product, and to its internal documentation. No real showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance or long term historical notability. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Keep. CiviCRM isn't merely back office, it is also the frontend for many nonprofit sites, a primary reason it has 1.2m hits in Google. The market it is in is significant: there are many thousands of NGOs in the world and the for-profit side of the market supports at least two significant companies, Convio, Blackbaud, and a part of Salesforce.com's business. According to Google CiviCRM is also cited in a number of current news articles, 16 books, and 35 scholarly articles. (Full disclosure: my employer uses CiviCRM) Mike Linksvayer (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not unswervingly committed to deleting this, if it in fact belongs in the history books. I found this during one of my periodic search sweeps --- I think this one was caught by "management solution". If you're familiar with the software, would it be possible to describe its operations more concretely and specifically?

I must admit that TLA phrases like "customer relationship management" rouse choking fury in me. The phrase would mean something entirely different in a charity as opposed to, say, a payday loan business or an automobile dealership. Their appearance seems part of a patter, meant to defeat understanding rather than enhance it. They are inherently non-neutral. So while this software may be significant, it's use of TLA patter makes it seem a lot less so. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to rewrite the lede to be more informative. I'm still not fully convinced of notability, and am finding it mentioned mostly in directories or credits. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The part about three million users is what got me. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CiviCRM is also notable because it is one of the very few pieces of software in this space that is free software, distributed under the GNU Affero General Public License. It has the endorsement of the Free Software Foundation (my employer -- http://www.fsf.org/news/nonprofit-fundraising-civicrm). As a free software project, it is also interesting because of its development methodology -- any researcher wanting to read about the development trajectory of software used in organizing around social causes will likely want to look at it. It's not just for generating appeals, it's also for organizing events and registration, for enabling people to find other people with similar interests located near them, for petition signing, and many other organizing-related functions. The overall genre of CRM software is certainly important -- literally every operating nonprofit organization uses something in this area. Johnsu01 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being free software does not automatically confer notability on otherwise non-notable software, and to suggest that it ought to get a pass because it is free software suggests inherent bias. I will agree that the product category of "CRM software" probably deserves a general article, no matter how slippery and vague the genre is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sure there have to be notable sources on CiviCRM out there somewhere. It has a pretty big userbase. Also notable as one of the only free software product in this market. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bring me one piece of substantial coverage in a firmly reliable source (i.e. not a Wordpress blog) and I will be convinced that this isn't just getting a bye because it's free software, and be happy to reverse myself and close this as a snow keep. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added two refs that aren't Wordpress blogs. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources you added was a Wordpress blog. The other, a blog hosted by a PBS commentator, has the following mention of this software, one sentence in a story about social media and "Web 2.0" (drink changaa and die!) in Africa: "The potential for bloggers here is huge as there are over 1000 member organizations each with its own space for blogging as well as features for forming groups and forums all made possible by Drupal and CiviCRM." I am still not certain that counts as substantial enough coverage; it tells me little about CiviCRM itself. My impression is that this article is still being given a pass because the software has fans on the Wikimedia Foundation and Free Software Foundation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of other places use it including Mozilla & CreativeCommons. It's one of the few full featured open source solutions for not just "back office" operations but also event registration, school management, case histories .. etc. It also falls into the same category as Sugarcrm which has a healthy article. Since CiviCRM was in its early stages when this article was started i'm not too surprised its not a bit more detailed. I think we just need to give it some love and update on new happenings past old news like —Tfinc (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see third party references that back up any of these alleged superlatives. Miami33139 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any superlatives in the article. What is an "alleged superlative" anyway? Mike Linksvayer (talk) 15:40, 23 July 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) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaaval

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

Another film that has been started much too early. This film was to start in early 2010, then in June/July 2010 and now has reportedly been postponed to 2011/12!! This project is definitely not to take off in near future, since the director as well as the lead actor are busy with other commitments. Johannes003 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy - per nom. Too Soon to have an article--Sodabottle (talk) 03:54, 22 July 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) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vada Chennai

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

Film that is yet to start, nothing confirmed yet, simply too early to start this article Johannes003 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per wikipedia policy for new films, pre-production/audio work is not enough to have a new article. You can move this to your user space and wait for filming to start. Once filming begins move this to mainspace. And the debate doesn't close because you said so. It runs its course for 7 (or more days).--Sodabottle (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userfy). It is in pre-production and filming hasn't begun. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:56, 22 July 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) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LA Music Blog

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

~~Procedural nomination~~ (changed to delete, below). This has existed for a few weeks now, and I'm not convinced it is a notable website. References include other blogs, and it seems the site is trying to gain notability because of that large blue-linked second paragraph that includes all the artist who have been reviewed by the blog. I'm absolutely neutral here, but this article doesn't give me good feelings. — Timneu22 · talk 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article satisfies the requirement in that it is a notable music entertainment blog within the Los Angeles area. The list of interviews has been significantly shortened and the article has been bolstered with facts regarding its history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medusavirus (talk • contribs) 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not appear that any of the references shown actually discuss this website. — Timneu22 · talk 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence it satisfies WP:WEB. References are poor. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Nominator. — Timneu22 · talk 20:51, 26 July 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) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octavian HART

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. If we look at the links provided, several definitely do nothing to establish notability. The video is irrelevant, since we rely on published sources. The facebook fan group also doesn't count, per WP:ELNO point 10. Neither do the official site (not independent) or the link to his sponsor (for obvious reasons). We're left with this, which notes that he once won third place in some competition, and this, where he suggests what women should eat in order to lose weight fast. Neither of these really establish his notability. Finally, there's this, noting that he's won 2nd, 4th and 11th place at something called Musclemania. The problem with this, and with the unsourced claim made in the article that he came in first, is twofold. First, there's no substantial coverage of him, only a mention of his placement. And second, we don't know what Musclemania is (well, one can find out, but I do wonder if it's a notable contest), and if coming in 2nd or 4th there actually means anything within his field. Finally, the entire text of the article lacks citations, so none of it can be verified to help establish notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per basic WP:ATHLETE. If MuscleMania can be proven to be a major professional competition though I might change my vote. -Drdisque (talk) 14:55, 22 July 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 withdrawn. Article was turned into a valid stub. — Timneu22 · talk 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey College for Girls

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

Schools cannot be A7'd. This article has no indication of importance, no sources, and barely any content. — Timneu22 · talk 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~~~: They may not be able to be speedily deleted per A7, but why not A1? This has no context whatsoever. I agree, delete if not speedy delete. GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn: I agree, it seems legitimate now, plenty of sources. GorillaWarfare ^talk 00:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged with A1. — Timneu22 · talk 18:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, please. I've located the school's website and a source or two that suggest that it may be a school of some historical significance. See eg [5]. I am going to try adding a bit of context and then we can reconsider if the article deserves to survive.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Keep. I've added some text and sources. It's a significant high school (and apparently the only girls fee-paying school in Jersey, with a total of 700+ students) and thus should be kept under our usual outcomes for schools; moreover, it appears to be historically notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page that existed at the time of nomination clearly qualified for speedy deletion, but since then Arxiloxos has found (and added) a lot of good sourced information. The school apparently educates up to the end of the secondary level (usually an indicator of notability), the building is a landmark, and the school is the only one of its kind in Jersey. --Orlady (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will withdraw AfD if and when GorillaWarfare changes his vote. (Cannot speedy keep if people voted "delete") — Timneu22 · talk 23:43, 21 July 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) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Bottom (setting)

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

Challenged deletion. AfD requested on my talk page as previous discussion was a while ago. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, Surely secondary reliable sources can be found. Marcus Qwertyus 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants#Setting. This article is much like the article that was merged per the previous AFD (oldid); just like that article, this does not meet the general notability guideline as it is not discussed in-depth by reliable secondary sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per previous merge consensus, content on this setting was already merged from Bikini Bottom (which remains a redirect) into the SpongeBob article. I'm curious how a good-faith recreation of the merged article at a new (and less intuitive) name happened. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gaming consensus by re-creating this article. Consensus can change but the fact that they didn't work with the original Bikini Bottom article strikes me as WP:GAMEing the system, although it's possible it was a good faith accident. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There already was consensus not to have a separate article, so the topic shouldn't have a new article under a new name. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:00, 22 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Alizadeh

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

Doesn't qualify as A7 because he claims to have won some international awards. I cannot verify that through a number of google searches, except to find that information on his website. There appears to be a lack of substantial third-party coverage, and there are no references on the article. (Qualifies as BLPPROD based on lack of sources.) Article has been speedied before, but I'm not nominating as CSD because of those pesky "awards won." — Timneu22 · talk 17:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Lionel (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources now in the article. I'm not sure what the nominator's "number of google searches" were, but more than enough coverage in independent reliable sources can be found simply by clicking on the word "news" in the spoon-fed links above. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with "more than enough". — Timneu22 · talk 11:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can we compromise on "enough"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No link seems significant to me. Maybe that's just me. — Timneu22 · talk 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google hits in Farsi ( جواد علیزاده ) have good quality like Iran Cartoon, link but I'm not sure if they can pass WP:RS. these ones: from a famous magazine in Iran Golagha and link are better sources. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alizadeh is a notable cartoonist in Iran. Here is an interview with Press TV.Farhikht (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and for awards here is some links to Turkish portals.Farhikht (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even after post-AfD editing, article is still not notable. Yes there is coverage, but WP:BLP requires importance, and claims in the article are unsourced, except for the Ankara prize. But is it a significant competition, and is the source reliable? I still vote Delete. Lionel (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article blanked for copyvio investigation: The recreated article is based on the last deleted version which was based upon the text of http://www.wittyworld.com/bios/bioalizadeh.html used without evidence of permission. The AfD should run its course to determine if the subject passes our inclusion criteriae, noting that if the AfD concludes in keep or no consensus, a rewrite from scratch will be required (unless OTRS permission can be obtained). MLauba ^(Talk) 14:14, 26 July 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) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gormless

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

Wiktionary has definition for this word and wikipedia is not a dictionary Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, guess it's not a hoax. — Timneu22 · talk 18:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or soft redirect to Wikitionary. The term already exists there. See wikt:gormless. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or soft redirect; already at Wiktionary, don't see this handy adjective as an encyclopedia subject. - The Right Reverend B. U. Gormless - talk 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where I live, the word 'gormless' is common usage. However, this article is not encyclopaedic and I'm not too sure about some of it not being Original Research. 'Hickybear', for example. Very limited ghits, most referring to 'There's a brother doing the hickybear' which appears to be part of a song or rap. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - "Gormless" is a wonderful, evocative, ancient word... which belongs on Wiktionary, as already plentifully noted. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:37, 24 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time Cube

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

I think this site may in fact fail WP:WEB. Realizing it's gone through a number of other VfDs and AfDs before our notability and sourcing idealizations had been thoroughly developed, I think it's time to re-evaluate. Essentially, WP:WEB outlines three criteria. Gene Ray's site fails the final two quite plainly. The first is the one that concerns us here:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.

Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

Now, we have what amounts to two independent reliable sources which discuss this website. One is an article in a student newspaper: The Maine Campus which deals substantively with the website circa 2004. The other is a listing in John Dvorak's PC magazine column from December 2003 where he lists it along with a half dozen other "crackpot" websites none of which have Wikipedia articles. I consider this listing to essentially be trivial coverage as defined in our notability guideline quoted above. If it wasn't we'd have articles on all the other websites listed in that article/directory including the perhaps arguably more famous Crank Dot Net.

So we have one substantial independent, third-party source on which to base writing a Wikipedia article on this website. One (dare I say, WP:ONEEVENT?). That clearly does not satisfy our notability criteria.

In short, I think that this article was grandfathered in from a time when Wikipedia had looser inclusion guidelines. What's clear to me, however, is that barring some sudden interest by respectable news outlets, academics, or other reliable sources, there will not be a possibility to write an encyclopedic summary of this website for an appropriate Wikipedia article. Realize also, since Gene Ray redirects here that we do have some issues with WP:BLP. The article states that this is one of the most widely known "crackpot" sites on the internet and that he is "racist". For such an obscure offering, it seems very problematic that we are personally attacking the site's creator, who seems to suffer from a kind of graphomania, as such (indeed, there is only one person behind this website).

There may be a way to incorporate some of the information here in other, more general articles. However, a stand-alone article this does NOT warrant. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy Keep per arguments in previous AfD, this nomination being the fifth and not the fourth nomination. In addition to that: The concept and the website has been analyzed in a peer reviewed article by Bei Dawei, which – along with a bunch of radio shows – the nominator conveniently forgot to mention. Furthermore, it was up for deletion in March 2010; exactly what "thorough development" of Wikipedia's policies has taken place since then? Notice also how the nominator brings up BLP issues here, instead of just nominating the redirect. (For the record, it's interesting how the deletionists have evolved: it used to be that they just nominated, now they first make sneaky edits to remove as much content as possible from the article in question.) Don't be worse than Hitler, please. Woseph (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem, the claim that "Bei Dawei" has "analyzed" this website in a "peer-reviewed article" is manifestly false. You can access the supposed article here. This is published in the "journal" of Hsuan Chuang University which is neither peer-reviewed nor has any impact factor whatsoever, essentially being an in-house student-journal maintained by a lower-tier private university in Taiwan. It might as well be self-published. As for the "bunch of radio shows", I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but given your dishonesty with regards to the "peer-reviewed article", I'd guess that these are not likely to rise to the standards of notability outlined above. But, be my guest. List the prominent radio shows that have substantively discussed this website that can be used as sources. And, "for the record", I'm amazed that Godwin's Law was satisfied on the first comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you know it's not peer-reviewed? Not all peer-reviewed journals are prestigious or videly circulated, and only journals in JCR get impact factors. As for radio shows, there are several ones, but he was on Lionel's show several times; a clip is available here [6]. (And, "for the record", I'm amazed that you didn't get the joke.) Woseph (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The editorial policy of the journal on the page I linked to indicates that it is a university journal which, in Taiwan, typically means that no outside peer-review occurred. I suppose it is a possibility that this particular journal does that, but the onus is on you to show it is reliable, not on me. The fact that there are zero citations to this paper also indicates that it is not a very good source and doesn't deserve to be placed on any reliably sourced pedestal. Also, independent analysis of their more highly-cited (according to a quick citation search I did) Journal of Management Studies indicates that it is the lowest ranked journal in Taiwan: [7] I take this as an indicator that this is really plumbing the depths to claim that this represents any sort of reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Someone claiming to be Bei Dawei, and posting from an IP belonging to the Hsuan Chuang University, says that the article was peer reviewed Talk:Time_Cube/Archive_12#Bei_Dawei_says_Hi. No one said it is a prestigious journal, but it does seem to be a peer reviewed journal. The survey you linked, which as you pointed out yourself did not rank the journal in question, states that 60 journals met their criteria, but only 46 were included in the survey. This means that HCJM could be number 46 out of 60 possible – not too bad. (Also, isn't it interesting that the article you link states, as a corollary, that HCJM has "a review system", and the same is true for a bunch of other journals with similar sounding "university" names? I take this as an indicator that this AfD is really plumbing the depths to claim that Time Cube is not notable.) Woseph (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review in general can mean a lot of different things. When I refer to "peer review", I generally refer to the process by which reviews happen for most academic journals which is to say an editor sends the paper along to an acknowledged expert in the field who reviews the paper and vets it for the journal. Alternatively, we have in-house university journals which may send comments by the editor or an associated member of the university to the writer of the paper, but which ultimately do not rise to the standards we usually expect from peer review. That's my opinion of what's going on here. It's hard to say exactly how the review, if it really did happen, worked because there is no way to verify it. Usually in such cases we default to assuming the worst about the publication. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for reasons detailed in previous 4 deletion discussions. Infrogmation (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this seems to be the 6th nom.- Wolfkeeper 19:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, is it maybe possible to spell-out which arguments exactly apply to the rationale above? It's not as though I didn't read the other AfDs. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep we've kept it 5 times already, let it go.- Wolfkeeper 19:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a poor reason. Arguments sink or swim on their merits, not based on the number of times an article has been discussed. None of the previous discussions actually looked at the sources or attempted to ascertain the notability. I have. That makes this time different and substantively so. If you cannot refute my analysis, then it would behoove you to not !vote. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can change, but it's almost certainly not going to, you're wasting your time. This seems to be a notable topic that receives a healthy number of page hits.- Wolfkeeper 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of page hits an article receives is irrelevant. We have objective criteria by which we are supposed to measure the notability of an article. We need not go by the presumption of editors as to whether an article "seems" to be on a notable topic or not. Some of our most popular articles were deleted for lack of encyclopedic worthiness (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of euphemisms) ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments sink or swim on their merits, not based on the number of times an article has been discussed., so we should just keep listing it, ignoring any double jeopardy issues? Interesting idea. Woseph (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is truly the same argument, then no. I submit that I'm making demonstrably different claims. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did Wikipedia start taking itself so seriously? And would it be possible to have the stick surgically removed from our collective backsides, so that the site can go back to being at least marginally interesting and fun? Time Cube is here because it's an interesting topic. What, do you guys think the 30k of bandwidth that the article is taking up is somehow slowing down the Internet? Sheesh. I used to spend hours a day on Wikipedia, exploring odd and interesting topics. But now it's like the world's worst version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Everything fun, interesting, or quirky is being flensed away, all to satisfy some anal-retentive killjoys who apparently can't stand the idea of anyone valuing something that they themselves don't value. Worst yet, Wikipedia has actually become the OPPOSITE of what it should have been- instead of being a place where you can find little-known information on a wide variety of topics, it's become a place where you can find ten thousand words on different Light Sabre combat styles, but not a damn word on anything current or timely. I recall back when David Motari caused a national stir by killing a dog on video in Afghanistan. Several people tried to build Wiki pages about it, but were constantly shut down by the increasingly tight-assed Wiki Guardians who seem to think it's their job to keep anything topical or newsworthy off the site.

So in closing: Unclench your butt-cheeks and let the Time Cube article stay. It's not hurting anyone, and maybe, just MAYBE by keeping it and a few other "worthless" articles around, you can salvage what little is left of Wikipedia's soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are looking for something that Wikipedia is not. Yes, the site is different from what it was when it started. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is the Time Cube of AfDs. Artw (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable. Sufficiently sourced. Does not violate anything I can find <g>. While "harm" is not relevant as a reason for deletion, it is clear that no harm is done to anyone by the artile as it stands. Stare decisis holds - prior AfDs, absent any reason to believe consensus has changed, should be weighed here. Collect (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator's argument seems to be that sources are not recent. However,Notability is not temporary: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not the most notable thing in the world but it is notable enough to meet our criteria. It will remain forever as a very minor footnote in the history of human mental health. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep probably unscientific but notable fringe theoryWeaponbb7 (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy. The core policy here is WP:VERIFY - does the "one substantial independent, third-party source" satisfy our verifiability policy? If it does we can Keep the article. If it doesn't we must Delete the article as unverfied/able. Exxolon (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As to verifiability, well, what needs to be verified? Time Cube and Gene Ray's beliefs are as far as I can tell unique to Gene Ray. The article makes no claim that these beliefs are true (nor as far as I can tell does anyone in seriousness other than Ray). The Time Cube "theory" is verified by Ray's writings, website, public appearances, and third party reporting, to the extent that it can be said to be verified that "Gene Ray says such and so which he calls Time Cube". -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the issue is that this is about all we can verify. "Gene Ray says such and so which he calls Time Cube." is the only sentence really possible for this article. And this seems to fly in the face of WP:PSTS as an idealization, in my mind. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really not notable or of borderline notability. Fringe on top of that. What possible reason could we have for keeping a fringe theory of questionable notability. Yworo (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no evidence of notability.--Scott Mac 17:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is definitely not notable. The article has two sources. This one is not sufficient for notability, as it's just a fluff piece in The University of Maine student newspaper This article gives the subject about 3/4 of one paragraph, for all of 4 sentences. It's not notable under Wikipedia rules, and it must be deleted in spite of WP:ILIKEIT votes. However, it's linked to so much in Wikipedia [8] that it should be kept somewhere as an essay or in WP space. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The article has two sources.", which does not imply that there aren't more sources available. Unfortunately, some users have felt the need to delete good sources. For instance, a TechTV interview [9] was removed shortly after the article was nominated [10]. Further sources were mentioned above. Woseph (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Violation of WP:EXTERNAL We can't knowingly link to copyright violation material, It was on Tech Tv but the Video on youtube was not put up by Tech Tv Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why not just remove the link, but keep the fact that it was mentioned on TechTV? Woseph (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't meet the source guidelines, we can't count it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TechTV is not notable? Woseph (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical, I said it was not Valid to be WP:EXTERNALly linked to on youtube. I fail to that does not mean it can cited to the episode of Tech TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaponbb7 (talk • contribs)

Clearly this is not the nominator's fault but I am very uncomfortable with an AfD where significant sources and content are removed from the article during the discussion. People participating in the AfD have the right to see the complete article and evaluate the worth of it themselves. I would advise anybody considering suggesting a "delete", or who has already suggested to "delete", to look at this version: [11], which is the article as it was when the AfD was initiated.

On the specific issue of the Tech TV coverage, Weaponbb7 is right. We can't link to copyvios on YouTube but we certainly can cite the original coverage. References do not need to be links. It makes verifiability difficult but not impossible. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - light on content but clearly notable & well known as a crank. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the article currently stands, it doesn't appear to sufficiently establish notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing to keep. The TechTV interview [12] establishes notability of the subject. "TechTV was broadcast in 70 countries, reached 43 million households" so his interview there in combination with the other sources establishes sufficient notability. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "Gene Ray" the guy who created the website seems to be far more notable than his theory, we can do a subsection of the time cube theory in his WP:BIO. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources in mind we could use for a bio? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw more soures about him and His quirky idea than i saw about the quirky idea. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to move it... and more fun to write. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. He is only potentially notable because of his website and has no prospect of notability beyond that. Therefore the website is and must remain the primary topic. GDallimore (Talk) 01:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like several sources have been removed from the article. It might need some work, but I don't see any compelling reason why it should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the rescue tag in case more sources that everyone agrees upon can be found, hwoever I consider the people running around deleting the current sources to be on extremely shaky ground. Artw (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article exists solely to poke fun at the site's creator. Who suggested moving it to Gene Ray? Really bad idea, he's had even less independent coverage than his website. The trouble is, everything written about the website is in unreliable or trivial sources. There is no serious coverage of this (and yes you can cover stupid things in a serious way). Guy (Help!) 22:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The website is notable for being discussed by others, and a nonpareil example of internet crackpottery. (I wonder how many people advocating "delete" were not yet online a dozen years ago and are thus unaware how famous in internet culture Time Cube was.) It is still an observable meme, referenced in blogs example, websites examples and t-shirts example. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just about keep If I didn't think it was notable, I would have nommed it for deletion a month ago when its presence started to disrupt my calm. There are two sources cited as the article currently stands, both of which appear to be reliable. One (Maine Campus article) definitely gives it more than trivial coverage. The other (PC Magazine) mentions some specific things about the site which can be (and have been) extracted and placed in the article without original research. It therefore meets the requirements set out in WP:NOTE. So we have two reliable, non-trivial sources as required by WP:NOTE and by WP:WEB.

Also, I dispute the statement in the nomination that "we'd have articles on all the other websites listed in that [PC Magazine] article". Not true - that would only be the case if there were a SECOND reliable source for each of those other websites, as there is in this case. GDallimore (Talk) 00:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While two sources is the absolute minimum for the "multiple" requirement in WP:WEB, it says "multiple non-trivial" and this fails in that sense. A single paragraph in a list of crack-pot sites in a magazine column (not a full article) doesn't count for non-trivial. This actually fails WP:WEB. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Quality, not quantity is the issue with triviality and, as I've said, both sources give useful information for putting into an article without requiring original research and therefore neither of them is trivial. GDallimore (Talk) 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood my reasoning. I did not say they were poor quality, but that doesn't mean that they are non-trivial. A passing mention in a RS is fine for inclusion in a wikipedia article, but it definitely does not establish notability. This is spelled out clearly in the policy. The PC Mag article is a passing mention, it doesn't provide any in-depth detail of explanation of the topic - just includes a single short paragraph as part of a list. At issue here is whether we have enough coverage in reliable sources to establish the the topic is notable enough for a wikipedia article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't misunderstand, I just completely disagree for the reasons I have given. There is in-depth (or significant in the words of NOTE) coverage in PC Mag (ie quality), irrespective of the briefness of the mention (ie quantity). This is clearly the case from the fact relevant criticisms about the style of the website and its prominent featuring among crank sites can be extracted from the source without original research. GDallimore (Talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I see your point. I just happen to disagree. If we created an article for everything and everyone ever mentioned by Dvorak in his column (as opposed to an article in PC Magazine) we could simply drop the notability requirement. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I said? "that would only be the case if there were a SECOND reliable source for each of those other websites". GDallimore (Talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read what you said. I continue to disagree that the topic is notable based on the sources given. If it's notable someone should be able to find other sources that meet WP:RS and then this whole issue would be moot. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and atop nominating it already. Google news shows two places it has received coverage at. [13] You need a paid subscription to access either of those articles though. There was even a documentary made called Above God by Hanover, about Time Cube. Dream Focus 04:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Guy. The article fails to establish notability and the coverage that is available mainly serves to poke fun at the owner. AniMate 05:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. This website was once very notable, it keeps that notability. LK (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage in multiple independent (mainstream) WP:RS. Verbal chat 11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I also note that I am very bothered when articles are repeatedly nominated for deletion when nothing substantial has changed; it seems disruptive and it's difficult to assume good faith, especially when the article is nominated several times. ElKevbo (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It has already been merged with Gene Ray. Use the talkpage to build consensus whether it should perhaps be moved to Gene Ray and reworked into more of a biographical structure. Since this is de facto the article about Gene Ray, it also needs to comply with WP:BLP. ScienceApologist is right that at the bottom of things, this is an article about a person suffering from a kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and while it is fair to discuss this Ray terms of his impact as a classic online crank, we need to be careful not to let this turn into an attack page. --dab (𒁳) 15:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article about a website, not a person. The website may be notable. The person most assuredly is not. Dlabtot (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He is notable for Time Cube and nothing else. Time Cube, as a website and as a theory, is the encyclopaedic subject. If it reads like a BLP, particularly a disparaging one, then that means it needs a good cleanup. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read the actual website and its nothing more than the incoherent ramblings of an obviously mentally ill person and therefore not notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your use of "therefore" in your reasoning. It is perfectly possible for something/somebody to be crazy and still notable if it/they have the coverage required. Mein Kampf probably fits the description of "the incoherent ramblings of an obviously mentally ill person" yet it is very notable. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an anonymous forgery plagiarised and cobbled together from other sources to support an incoherent conspiracy theory with absolutely no basis in fact, yet it remains highly notable. Nero, Richard Dadd and Emperor Norton were all crazy and yet notable. I am not saying that Time Cube is as notable as all these, but being crazy does not not preclude it being notable enough for inclusion. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Clearly notable. Time Cube itself is obviously more nutty than a squirrel's turd but as far as crackpot fringe theories go this one is notable enough to be written about. Reyk _YO! 08:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have one thing to add to the discussion. The only reason I ended up at this deletion page was because I came to Wikipedia looking for information on the Time Cube website. To that end, Wikipedia proved a useful reference for me, and is that not the point? 109.224.152.101 (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. Subject of Above God award winning documentary. [14][15] With the other sources, that should be enough. Ray's most notable for his work popularizing the theory, so the article about the web site would describe that better than one that describes where he was born and how he grew up. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove the "Weak", make it a full "Keep". Since the article was marked for Rescue, I decided I'd do that, looked around and found several more references, which I added to the article with a bit more text. He's not David Icke, but seems notable enough in his own way. --GRuban (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this and previous AfDs have provided multiple nontrivial sources that establish notability. Ergative rlt (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are more than enough sources in the article that help it satisfy notability. Continuing to bring it up for deletion does not change this, and only serves to waste everyones time. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and SALT all future potential AfD's for the topic. WP:NTEMP applies, and there's nothing been said here that's effectively challenged previous AfD outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least moderate notability, though the article should focus more on the reasons for its notability and less on describing its actual content. Zach99998 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient independent references for notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say "Keep"...until I read our article and discovered that our best sources were only a handful of college newspapers that actually published articles solely devoted to Gene Ray's theory. The rest of the mainstream media either ignores Time Cube or has given it passing mention among lists of oddities. Wikipedia and Gene Ray's site come up as the top two search engine hits for "Time Cube". Worse, the only literature coverage uses Wikipedia as its source. To me, that indicates it doesn't have sufficient notability to stand on its own. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stare decisis. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have the real, high quality sources encessary- apparently no one out there really cares beyond treating it as a curiosity. Time to cut it loose. Courcelles (talk) 11:07, 28 July 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 - Significant article improvement since nomination has rendered nom's rational and early deletes moot.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Hooker

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

Disputed prod. Basis for proposed deletion was: No references to support claims. Only ref is to playboy. Additionally, I think it doubtful this person meets our inclusion criteria. CIreland (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTINHERITED. He may have photographed some famous people but that, in and of itself, does not make him notable in the absence of evidence of specific coverage focusing on him. Fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have managed to meet the policy. The reference problem and the claim to notability are solved now. And, I really don't think WP:NOTINHERITED applies anymore. Still working on the article though. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be the only claim of importance: "supposedly holds the record for record number rejections for a Playboy photographer." 2 issues: (1) supposedly??? (2) even if verified, is it notable? Lionel (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that there is not a lot of in-depth coverage about this subject, however, Aditya has shown that there is some discussion about him in multiple, independent sources. In addition to what is cited in the article, I did find that he was a distant relative of Union General Joseph Hooker[16], and was interviewed by a psychology journal[17] and a major newspaper, the Chicago Tribune[18]. There was also another brief mention in a book.[19] Regarding WP:NOTINHERITED, I would draw attention to the fact that it is an essay (not even a guideline) that typically refers to a subject's relationship with one or two individuals. In this instance, this is not the maître d' who seated everyone on Spago's A-list and got to know them on a first name basis. This subject's work (his photography) is directly linked to the notability of many other individuals (their appearance on the cover or centerfold of Playboy). Location (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article now should be confidently okay now. Aye? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 29 July 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) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Cloud

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

Contested prod. Article is about company with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only info I could find was press releases and company sites. TN X Man 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising: a provider of Software as a Service (SaaS) data visualization and business intelligence (BI) software. Another one of them. No showing of long term historical notability or historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am assuming the nominator has checked the references and found them lacking. I find that creating a number of bad reference links in these articles is becoming a way for promotional articles to appear notable to a casual observer thus avoiding deletion. Despicable. Miami33139 (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETION WARNING SHOULD BE REMOVED This is a genuine company and due to its size and young age (just over 1 year old) it is understandable that there are not a huge number of outside sources to refer to. Everything written is factual, all the references to outside reviews are genuine, so it should not be falsely referred to as a "promotional" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.48.108.96 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said it isn't a genuine company, but it just doesn't pass WP:CORP. Sure, there are a lot of references, but they either lead to social networking sites of employees or they don't mention the company at all. Delete. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:10, 26 July 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) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NY Confidential

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

Not noteable The Eskimo (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Noteable The Eskimo (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is my first attempt at listing an article on the AFD page, so I hope I am not out of line commenting here. I stumbled across this article, and its main point of noteability was that it was the escort service associated with the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. I thought that was a pretty tennuous reason for it to have its own stub article, so I originally redirected it to the Spitzer scandal page. As it turned out, the connection to the Spitzer scandal was not true- or at least a very questionable claim- so I deleted the redirect, and, once the Spitzer scandal info was removed from the article space, it was all of two sentences long. A cursory Google search of NY Confidential didn't provide anything that looked noteable to me, so I AFDed it. Maybe someone has some other sources, or can point me in the right direction, b/c I'd much rather salvage an article than delete it, even though I really have no interest in the subject, and just kind of stumbled onto it in the first place. OK, thanks The Eskimo (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Lee Mortimer. I am finding very little specifically about the escort service, but quite a bit about a society column he used to write under the names NY Confidential, N.Y. Confidential, or New York Confidential. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the company (and the guy) is actually pretty notable for a number of reasons... but is simply impossible to source. shrug, such is life --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Magazine Article about the 2000 dollar hooker was based on this agency. If its notorious enough for a magazine article, it should stay. There is also a movie staring Jeremy Pivin about Jason Itzler and NY Conf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.160.61 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Mountain University

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

Unaccredited "university" with little third party media coverage. Non-notable. Johnfos (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are two mentions in the New York Timess: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/garden/15buddhists.html?pagewanted=all and

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/world/americas/15iht-15buddhists.12909622.html Due to the First Admendment, many states have liberal laws that make it easy for religiouns organizations to establish unaccrediated colleges and universities which can legally grant religious degrees. Most such degress have little value outside the religious organization that granted them. The internet presence of most such educational establishments consists of their own websites and self-published books. however, Diamond Mountain University is mentioned on a large number of independant websites, blogs. directories, & buddhist websites. If Buddhism is considered a fringe religous group by Wikipedia, then it is a well knwon fringe group. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All high schools should be in and all colleges should be in. Some colleges are better than others, some are reputable and some are not, some have specific religious missions and others are open to all comers. As long as the article exhibits veracity, verifiability, and is written in a neutral tone, it's not really Wikipedia's place to allow some and toss others, as though we are picking schools we would personally attend or to which we would send our children. The mere fact of providing a truthful, verifiable, neutral description aids the public good. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - educates to tertiary level; such pages should be sourced and expanded not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. Exactly which sources should be included to establish notability? Johnfos (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The above-mentioned NYT articles are actually the same article and this is not so much about this university than rather about Michael Roach and Christie McNally. Therefore, the notability is not established. If one could address this issue, the article should be improved. Otherwise, delete. Beagel (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The analogy to high school notability, mentioned above, is that DEGREE GRANTING colleges and universities are assumed to be notable. But this does not appear to be a degree-granting institution. It is simply a retreat venue that offers some classes. The word "university" in the title does not seem to be accurate. In that case, the notability of the retreat venue is subject to the usual requirement, namely, significant coverage by independent reliable sources - which this venue does not appear to meet. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 15:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per MelanieN. Not a degree granting institution, plus too little specific coverage. Fails both WP:N and WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename & keep to Diamond Mountain Center - the place doesn't even call itself 'university' on its website.--Kudpung (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What good would renaming it do? It would still be non-notable. The article has not a single outside reference, and the NYT article cited above is about two people and barely mentions Diamond Mountain. Prsaucer1958 argues that the retreat is "mentioned" by "independant websites, blogs. directories, & buddhist websites", none of which are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, and none of which provide significant coverage as defined by Wikipedia. Prsaucer also tries to imply that if we don't keep this obscure American retreat we are somehow disrespecting Buddhism; sorry, doesn't follow. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When searching for "Diamond Mountain" and "bowie" or "arizona" you can find more references, which I have added to the article, all of which include more coverage than the 2008 NYT piece on the founders, though I added that also. The coverage seems to be enough to keep this 5 year old article. Am OK with changing name to remove "university" though its status as an unaccredited school should be noted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice try and I really appreciate your efforts. But two of the references, the Idaho Mountain Express and the Arizona Range News, are from tiny non-notable papers, and the reference from the Arizona Daily Star (like the NYT reference) appears to be about the founder and his spiritual partner, rather than about the facility. I'm sticking with "delete", or alternatively, "merge" to the founder Michael Roach, since he at least has some reliable sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Melanie on this one: still non-notable. Maybe we could have a paragraph on Diamond Mountain in the Michael Roach article. Johnfos (talk) 20:57, 28 July 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) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bowden

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

Contested PROD by article creator. Not-yet notable junior comedian. I don't think that any of the references are from reliable, independent sources, two are connected to him (school & friend), one is a list mention only, the other is from a "comedy trainer" who reviewed the act. I (mistakenly?) read it as a review of a student, but apparently isn't related - but for a "comedy guru", it's interesting that Steve Roye does not yet have a wikipedia article, so I doubt his value as a reliable source. The-Pope (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Delete, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search of Steve Roye will show who he is. Instead of being a Stand up Comedian himself, he is a comedy professional, based in the USA, while Sam is based in Australia and only knows him through his comedy, with no other personal connection. Roye reviews comedy, and writes comedy guides, meaning that he is not a notable comedian himself, and therefore would have no Wikipedia page, but he is notable in the comedy world as a comedy guru. I believe that this source is definitely independent and reliable, and it alone supports the validity of Sam having a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10faydom (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See these two references for more information on Roye -http://www.killerstandup.com/comedyresume.pdf -http://realfirststeps.com/standupcomedysecrets/author-details —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10faydom (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 10faydom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 22 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Five (film)

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

I am procedurally nominating this article here at AfD because I believe that this article is beyond "uncontroversial deletion." The PROD rationale was "Per the notability guidelines in WP:MOVIE, this planned movie should not have its own article yet (the production is too recently started to be certain of a final product). If kept, article needs to be pared down only to those aspects notable to the movie itself." Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite my near-total lack of interest in the 5th movie in this series, I don't feel the article about a pending movie should be deleted. It satisfied notability guidelines (WP:N) as well as the specific criterion for inclusion under the specific rules for (WP:NFF future films). To remove any lingering doubts, I have updated the article to include a reference to Variety (a reliable published source), which mentions that "lensing" has started in Puerto Rico. I assume "lensing" is the same thing as principal photography. Other referenced web sites show pictures of the cast. I, along with others, have removed extraneous details about arrests or weather problems in Puerto Rico. I am also hoping someone will nominate this article for semi-protection, due to number of annoying anonymous edits this topic has attracted. rhyre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going with weak keep. The series itself is notable (happy to say I've never seen any of them) and there's no WP:CBALL here except to say that it will' be released, instead of it already having been released. — Timneu22 · talk 21:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the person who prodded the article in the first place. WP:NFF states two criteria for having their own article. The first is that principal photography have been starting; I stipulate that this is in fact the case for the movie and is met. The second criteria, however, is this: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." This has not been met, in my opinion. There are 6 references. One is to IMDB, which generally does not qualify as a reliable source. A second is a set of photographs on comingsoon.net; this certainly does not establish notability (it merely establishes existence). A third source, also from comingsoon.net, indicates it is unreliable--note that the authors are "scoopers" (i.e., SPS) who are merely repeating what is in a PR newspaper. The Variety source seems solid, the screenrant and collider sources possibly (I don't know enough about the industry to be certain these are reliable). To me, this doesn't satisfy GNG--if it did, then pretty much any future film by a major company would qualify, and it seems to be that WP:NFF is specifically trying to stop from happening. The only grounds I can see for keeping are WP:IAR, if we want to logic that it seems more likely than not that this article will eventually need to be made, and thus taking it down just makes more work later. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used the article to confirm a rumour I heard of the fifth film, the film is going to be big due to the following from the other films and the cast. Atkinsonhd (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I used the article to confirm a rumour I heard" is not a reason for keeping. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 26 July 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) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelito Systems

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

No indication of notability. References given are press releases, internal or references to the parent company. Google search does not pick up anything to establish notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just being a software services and consulting company ought to be grounds for speedy deletion, at least if the originating editor can't describe what the business does in more specific and concrete terms. At any rate, there is absolutely no indication here of historical, technical or cultural significance or long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is not listed and is a poor cousin to the bigger IT companies from the TATA group. So coverage is mostly limited to press releases. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:07, 22 July 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) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Surgical Radiology

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

Deprodded by article creator, who restored an earlier version with exhaustive lists of editorial board and executive officers of the publisher. Prod reason was "New journal, with just 1 published issue yet. Article creation very premature. Not listed in any selective, major databases. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG." Nothing has changed since then, no independent reliable sources added. Utterly non-notable, if it becomes notable in the future, article can be re-created. Crusio (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the editorial board composition suggests that the journal may become notable, at the moment is not indexed in any of the standard places and does not satisfy WP:Notability (academic journals), not to mention WP:N. In fact, the article gives the impression of having been created specifically to advertise the journal's existence. Overall, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Userfy if creator requests to ease possible re-creation in the future). None of the references are independent reliable sources as required by WP:Notability; Google News & Books draw complete blanks, as does Google Scholar once you exclude the website of the journal itself. Qwfp (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the publisher for the journal. While we obviously believe the journal to be noteworthy, it is not yet indexed in Scopus or Pubmed and so does not meet Wikipedia criteria yet. We will recreate the entry at a later date once we satisfy all criteria. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.52.9 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This journal does not comply with international standards for scientific publications. There are serious issues such as case reports being labeled as original articles which makes the reader believe these are original studies. Furthermore, the first 20 pages of its FIRST and only issue are only advertisements.

*Delete. Nearly the entire editorial team comes from only three institutions/cities within one country. Might raise suspicion of bias and offend an international audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.10.195(talk) 01:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see the problem with labeling case studies as original articles, that's what they are... The limited geographical distribution of the editorial board will cause problems for the journal when they apply for coverage in PubMed and (even more so) ISI, but I don't think this is important for the discussion here, which concerns notability in the sense used by WP. --Crusio (talk) 08:04, 25 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GeoLearning

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

This article doesn't assert any importance whatsoever. It tells us that this is a SaaS company, that it was founded, that it made some money, and lists its products. Just about every single reference comes from their own website, and parts of the page seem to be mild advertising or at least skewed like a brochure. There is not a valid third-party source listed, with exception to their CEO winning some awards. The CEO may in fact be notable (tough call), but I don't think this company is. I am able to find some press releases about the company, but not much that's more significant than that. — Timneu22 · talk 13:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When this page was created, it was done so by using every other entry in the marketplace as a template. Being one of the very first SaaS LMS companies, I find that it is very relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencarstens (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, you should be able to address the issues in the AfD to prove the notability, right? — Timneu22 · talk 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a guideline which we use to determine if an article for a corporation should exist if challenged, and this article in that deletion review. To make the article pass this test, you should read WP:COMPANY and add content to improve the article. Then reply here and ask us to have a look. patsw (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am attaching references and will work on the content.Bencarstens (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)bencarstens[reply]

Delete. Yet another advertisement for a back-office business, described in vague jargon --- managed learning services and on-demand Software as a Service (SaaS) learning management system (LMS) solutions for corporate internal training, talent management and external initiatives --- and meaningless sales patter --- best-of-breed functionality approach --- without a credible showing of long term historical notability or historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Matters of writing style are handled by editing the article not in AFD. You incorrectly characterize the general policy for including an article in Wikipedia as requiring long term historical notability. It does not, otherwise no new companies would have articles. The article content is descriptive and while using some peacock language does not fall under WP:ADVERTISING. patsw (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New companies should not have articles. We are making an encyclopedia, not a business directory, and unless a business has some kind of cultural or historical significance, or is recognized for having achieved a significant technological breakthrough, it is not an encyclopedia subject. This article makes no case for that kind of notability.

And vague peacock terms and sales-oriented patter resists editing: to be rephrased neutrally, it has to mean something to begin with, and the ritual invocation of "software as a service" (in English, I think that means you're never done paying for it) and similar empty phrases doesn't really give anyone without a conflict of interest much to work with. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references from industry-leaders and respected sources - Gartner Research, Software & Information Industry Association, Ernst & Young, American Business Awards, U.S. Small Business Association, as well as industry-leading magazines Human Resource Executive Online, E-Learning! Magazine and Inc. Magazine. They consider GeoLearning to be a notable company within this field and deserving of recognition.Bencarstens (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)bencarstens[reply]
Keep. The added references should be reviewed by the nominator and delete voters. I believe that the article reflects significant third party coverage of the subject and passes WP:COMPANY. An explicit assertion of importance is not required. patsw (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references really convince me that this business has the kind of lasting place in history needed to be an encyclopedia subject. Because the tawdry business of business makes so much noise, importance is exactly what is required, and the thing that distinguishes those businesses that are encyclopedia subjects from the ones that ain't. And the article is still full of "solution"-speak that only gets worse the more mutual admiration society awards get added. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A notability discussion is about cited third party coverage being either missing or trivial, it is not about whether an editor deems the subject "important" or having a "lasting place in history". In particular, the dbusiness and Silicon Prairie News references are typical of the references which accompany articles on businesses of this size in Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GeoLearning has been in business for 13 years and was a pioneer in the SaaS-focused approach to learning management. The "you're never done paying for it" comment suggests a problem with the industry and not the entry itself. The company is just as significant, or more so, than some SaaS and LMS entries within Wikipedia and I think it would be a disservice to leave it out. Bencarstens (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)bencarstens[reply]
Re: Your "see other companies" argument. — Timneu22 · talk 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I understand. My intent was not to base the argument on that. I believe the content and references linked stand on their own. Bencarstens (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)bencarstens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencarstens (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Valley (Back to the Future)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article contains original research and in-universe prose. Topic is not notable and the film articles already cover anything that could possibly be considered relevant to the actual setting of the stories. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article seriously violates the guidelines at WP:FICTION and the policies on no original research and it does not assert its notability. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough real world notability in the article, such as filming locations of the Back to the Future trilogy, to make this more than just fancruft (or funcraft as stated in the last time this was nominated). "Hill Valley" had been a popular feature on the Universal Studios tour (later in was "Grandview" from Ghost Whisperer), and as an analogy for a small town, it's only slightly less famous than Bedford Falls. While it also has its share of fancruft, there's enough real world notability in here for a keep. Mandsford 14:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If Bedford Falls is more famous ("notable") than Hill Valley, how does that warrant an entire article full of prose and fancruft for the former if the latter is simply a disambig page to It's a Wonderful Life? Sottolacqua (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I agree this content should be deleted, WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a compelling reason to either keep or remove an article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly agree with EEMIV. The argument that other stuff exists on different articles must be avoided at anytime. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Back to the Future - makes no assertion or substantiation of notability; regurgitates WP:PLOT sufficiently succinctly covered elsewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, clean up the OR and SYNTH, and then editorially consider a merge of the remaining article. There's some good, real-world sources here, and a delete or a redirect-with-extreme prejudice are unwarranted, despite the excessive fan detail. Is there someplace else where this can be Transwiki'ed as-is? Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main problem here seems to be that some of the information in the article is unsourced. Some of the plot details could be trimmed and the essential ones should be cited to the movies (or other appropriate references that discuss subjects like continuity within the trilogy, etc.). Need for cleanup is not a reason to delete the article. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of valid information about a notable location. Surprised it isn't just called Courthouse Square though. A lot of the information is about the location, not just what it was used for in the Back to the Future films. Dream Focus 02:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then Merge to Courthouse Square. Abductive (reasoning) 08:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read through it I'm thinking most information would be valid only in its own article here. Some of the information here could be duplicated or moved there, but a lot of it belongs just here. This article improves the Wikipedia, by showing how how a notable location came into existence, the movies made there, and other encyclopedic information. This is the sort of thing some people might come to Wikipedia to learn about, and nothing gained by destroying it. Dream Focus 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lot of the information in the article is original research. This article is filled with a list of "unique places" to Hill Valley (all of which is unsourced and likely unverifiable), a list of concept cars that appear in the film (which are not related to the article topic), a list of locations and their alternate names in each year (which is unnecessary and does not add any additional encyclopedic understanding about the film series), production information related to Courthouse Square not specifically applicable to the film series, a status update of the Puente Hills Mall featured in the film, and an unsourced history of how the town evolved that is filled with cruft and storytelling. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:27, 29 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism

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

The article provides no independent third-party sources to verify notability. Also, a quick search I did showed that the only independent references to this award are trivial. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

snowball keep (article creator) in a minute i found 5 independent sources, hence no WP:before are you now changing the reason to delete to "notiblity"? are you saying that an award which picks notable people for 20 years requires 2 independent essays about it? Accotink2 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball does not mean what you think it means. Although I must commend your efforts, I still have doubts as to whether those sources constitute significant coverage of these awards. Most of them seem to me to be of the form "X is a great journalist; he also won the James Aronson award," which makes it hard to create a non-trivial article about the award. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Unfortunately I would have to agree, all the references are press releases and internally published anouncements. Those don't quite pass notability ideas, Sadads (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- by snowball keep, i mean that it will pass any vote overwhelmingly, and was wrongfully nominated. this standard as you apply it, might well wipe out most awards, including the Peabody Award, George Polk Award, The Hillman Prize even Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award. there are lots of press releases, but very few essays about "why this award is so important" Accotink2 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Note that the reference given on Peabody Award [20] is nontrivial. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Comment 5 sentences in Time doesn't strike me as "Significant coverage" per WP:N, you would agree that the others lack even that? Accotink2 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The difference is: the good awards articles have outside coverage from individuals not involved at all in the award itself, like the Times article on the Peabody. Sadads (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - would the Vineyard Gazette obit qualify? [21] Accotink2 (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better as a category or a list, and the individual references on the pages of the people that received them Sadads (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on the Google news search at the top of the AFD. It gets 39 results. If an award is mentioned in the news media, its notable, since if it wasn't they would mention it at all. Google book search shows 13 results also. The award is notable enough so that it is mentioned along with other great accomplishments by notable people. Dream Focus 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 04:25, 20 July 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) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are abundant independent sources that are easily locatable on Google for this award to both be non-trivial and correctly described. I endorse the above WP:SNOWBALL and WP:BEFORE comments. What sort of coverage is being demanded for an award anyway? It's not about the award itself but the quality of the sponsor, judges and recipients. patsw (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the award itself, that is where WP:Notability comes in. You don't write an article about the 2010 Correspondents dinner so that you can list the people that attended or received invitations. That is a damned notable crowd, but it certainly does not merit a page to it, instead the individuals that attended may have some information on their page about it, if it is important to them. Sadads (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not calibrating a "scale of award notability" and assigning arbitrary numeric values to it. There is no claim of importance relative to the Nobel Prizes. Your example, the White House correspondents dinner does have an article, and supports my position. All that matters is that the award is verifiable and has significant third party coverage and this test is easily met, so the article should be kept. patsw (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't notable! I don't think you understood my example, I suggested the 2010 Correspondents dinner, because it would be the same arbitrary list that we have now. And the Correspondent's dinner article discusses the organization and criticism and opinions about the dinner itself, not simply listing attendees, but only listing the most notable performers. And the Nobel Prize cites information about the creation and distribution of the prize, not about who has gotten it. Once they established notability through other sources, then they developed subpages for the recipients. Since the notability of this prize has yet to be proven, the arbitrary list that it is now has yet to be justified. Sadads (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, we are looking at the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism and not the 2010 James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism, so I don't understand why you even raised the point. Are we looking at the same article? Reliable third party sources have covered the award and they are cited in the article. You may be misunderstanding notability: it is looking at external coverage of the subject, not a personal judgment on how significant or important the subject is. A notability discussion is about cited third party coverage being either missing or trivial. patsw (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair, i do see the point of nominator WP:N: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" however WP:SALAT: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)."; WP:NLIST: "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above....The person's work ...(c) has won significant critical attention" Accotink2 talk 18:34, 23 July 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. With seven non-keep "votes" and over thirty to keep (mostly all policy-based), I am invoking IAR and closing this debate early; there really isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this will end up being closed as ~~keep~~ delete. NW (Talk) 11:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod

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

Article about a single event in the life of an otherwise non-notable person. Certainly the event has generated some news buzz, but within a week, the entire affair will likely be forgotten. This had been proposed for deletion under WP:BLP1E, but the article's author removed the prod, with the explanation: "This is an event article, not a biography, so BLP1E doesn't apply." If that is the case, than WP:NOTNEWS does apply. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This incident may serve as the incident that finally pushes this country into a useful and helpful dialog about race. It is also turning out to be one of the most controversial issues for NAACP in recent history. I think at some point it will be referenced on the NAACP page, the USDA page and any post mortem done on the Obama Administration Thediva —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. This is a part of history just like the Blood letter. It wasn't considered much when it was written, but twenty years later we see how it changed the world. History is history. The researchers who use Wikipedia will be deprived of an important bit of history if this is removed. Taram

Delete wikipedia is not the news. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Keep. I suggest waiting until early August before making a decision, to see what happens and where the controversy goes. For example, there are now reports (example) that the USDA may reemploy Ms Sherrod. Once things settle down, we can work out whether we should have a BLP about Ms Sherrod (very unlikely, IMO), rename this article to (say) "the Sherrod controversy" or merge it (preferably shortened) into some other article. (As an interim measure, we have a section about Ms S in the USDA article.)
As things stand, the reasoning behind the BLP1E rule and WP:NOTNEWS are both good arguments for deleting the article. We should only keep it (possibly under a different name) if something changes. But I think the end of this AfD will be too soon to decide on that. CWC 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Keep. I'll second the above. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather than the "temporary keep" recommendtations above, I would suggest that the article, as it stands, violates the spirit of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, and even though the information is sourced, its sources may not be the most neutral, and it is controversial and may well violate BLP guidelines. With so much that is troubling about the article, why not incubate it until the story plays out, and then it can be introduced later if the event merits. There is no rush to introduce information to Wikipedia, but there should be a rush to remove information that is injurious to living people. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. for now and review later. We are not in a rush to declare it WP:BLP1E. Also, start to think about where this content would be merged into. I don't see how a factual account in Wikipedia of the resignation is injurious in the WP:BLP sense. patsw (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Keep- with all due respect to the WikiDan61, I don't think incubation is the right way to go in this instance, Since this story is all over the news right now (which doesn't mean it necessarily falls under NOTNEWS), people are going to be coming here to look for information on the subject. In a month or two, when the fuss has (hopefully) died down in the media, then we can re-examine and judge a little better whether or not its really just news with no encyclopedic merit, or a genuine encyclopedic topic. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that method is that, in a couple of months when the controversy has died down, no one will be monitoring the article to see if it still merits inclusion. My experience has been that once an article gets past its first few weeks of existence, no one pays much attention any more and it will hang around forever. Just because people may come to Wikipedia to find information on a current event doesn't mean they should succeed in that search. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere -- if the story makes enough of a difference in things (e.g. if it causes a fundamental change in the operation of the DOA) then it may merit a story in the future. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone, namely I, volunteer to keep an eye on it. patsw (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding the question where this could be moved to, I can think of three articles: the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Tea Party articles since the controversy is more about them than it is about her.-Smile1234smile (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People rarely win when it comes to nominating something that's very much in the news at the moment, although I fully support that as a means of bookmarking the topic for review later on, after it's no longer being talked about. I suspect that this won't be historically notable, and that Shirley Sharrod will join Fawn Hall and Reginald Denny among people who had 15 minutes of fame, but at the moment, it's just a guess on my part. On the other hand, it's also possible that this will be a cautionary tale about not rushing to judgment. Ultimately, people consult Wikipedia because they want to look at something in an encyclopedia, and this has a currency that other sites do not have, while preserving the background that most of the "latest news" articles would not keep. Wikipedia won't suffer if this is kept. Mandsford 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I concede that the article will probably be kept, I also agree that it probably violates WP:BLP in a few ways. It really does need some attention to make sure it's as Neutral as possible. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suspect WP:BLP edits are fixed in the editing process, not in AFD. patsw (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, which is why I noted that such issues exist, and why I very specifically did not recommend deletion. It's awful hard to judge when the article - and the subject - are changing so rapidly, though. And that's part of the problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, a redirect for Shirley Sherrod to some other page, perhaps United States Department of Agriculture, is probably all that's needed here. Ronnotel (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't concede that WP:BLP1E is applicable here. Please make the case for it. patsw (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: absolute non-controversy for a very un-notable government employee that Andrew "I can Quote Mine Anything and Fox Will Believe Me" Breitbart targeted so that he could defuse the controversy over racism in his beloved Tea Party. Come November, the only part of this story that's going to get any coverage is FOX's complete lack of journalistic integrity. And you're damn right I'm pissed off; pissed off that this is even news in the first place 'cause of some idjits over the pond Sceptre ^(talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It at the least has the same political significance as ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. How can it not be called on July 20 a controversy? We can retain the article, let it evolve, and come back on August 20, September 20, etc. patsw (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You could make a stronger case if your bias wasn't so obvious in your diatribe against keeping the article. At least attempt to appear non-partisan —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the small text - this sort of thing annoys me too, and in the past I have supported deletion of articles at AfD on the grounds that 'this shouldn't be news!' (Balloon boy, anyone?). But I've eventually come to accept that Wikipedia does not decide what is notable. That's for news organisations and other reliable sources to decide; if a person or event has achieved notability, then we have to cover them, no matter how much we might prefer not to. Robofish (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment idjits?? thats not nice. Badmachine (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep for the converse reason--it will serve as a good historical example of how the Tea Party and its far-right allies & supporters were willing to destroy the careers of individuals, no matter how otherwise "notable" (or non-notable) they might be, in order to score political points. They destroyed the life of an African-American civil servant in order to try to convince everyone how totally not racist they are. Taken within the whole political context of the present day, you better believe this incident is notable. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the analysis of Mansford, but disagree with the conclusion. I linked to this article from my Google news page. In the short run, it saved me from the tedious process of reading a number of news articles, many of which only cover the last 12 hours of the story, and allowed me to apprehend the entire controversy in one big gulp. I don't think there's much left of it except for the talking heads. So one of my primary reasons for arguing to keep it is simple utility. I am not a wiki lawyer, so I suspect that someone in favor of deletion will find this reason useful in support of their cause. In the longer run, I think that there will exist a extensive Wikipedia article on the presidency of Barack Obama. Certainly a significant part of that article, or even a separate related article, will include discussions as to how race relations impacted his presidency and vice versa. Articles such as this may assist in that endeavor as, ironically, as primary source or it may be merged in another article collecting such incidents as these and the many articles that are sure to be written about Barack Obama in totality. In short, utility in the short run and substantive encyclopedic knowledge in the long run.75.30.69.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable beyond WP:BLP1E. The Sherrod incident will be referred to on blogs everywhere for the foreseeable future as proof of either the racism of the Obama administration or the power of the Vast Right-wing Media Conspiracy (tho probably not both on the same blog). I wouldn't object to an appropriate merge. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Breitbart, because he's the man responsible for the whole thing. DS (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story is everywhere. It is incredibly notable and is being discussed by the Administration and the Mainstream Media. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let's discuss in the appropriate forum whether Fox News is a reliable source. Reliable sources publish retractions & sanction employees for irresponsible reporting. -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy. Comparable situation, arguably. Also, keep in mind that even though WP is not the news, a large part of the responsibility of any encyclopedic work is to document events in history which WERE the news at one point. Ms. Sherrod may only have 15 minutes of fame, but the question of race relations in the USA will persist for a far longer time, bringing this story squarely into the realm of notability. This is also notable because a Presidential administration and its potential legacy are also closely involved. I would also strongly cross-link with Breitbart.Msr69er (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Msr69er has summarized my viewpoint on the question very well, and EastLaw has summarized the exact opposite of my viewpoint. Not one member of the Tea Party was in any position to fire Ms. Sherrod and ruin her career. That was accomplished through the admitted incompetence of the Secretary of Ag and the White House. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move The topic is notable and encyclopedic, although the article should be move to a article simply called Shirley Sherrod and then the event is described within the article. Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. Become a huge story now, involving White House, Vilsack, CNN, Breitbart, FOX, et al. I also support * move to Shirley Sherrod -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious keep. This is a pretty big story —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Department of Agriculture. No need for a stand alone article, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, unless it grows into something bigger, which is very unlikely. It's already discussed at United States Department of Agriculture (in fact, I think it violates WP:WEIGHT there). 71.52.140.113 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood, but I would partially disagree. My reading of WP:NOTNEWS indicates that some events are exceptions to this rule if the nature of the event transcends "routine" news reporting; that is the case here, because of the underlying issues I mentioned above. That makes this a notable story which will have some lasting historical significance. In the USDA article there can be a brief summary and a link to a standalone article; this is done all the time.Msr69er (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do NOT redirect to United States Department of Agriculture. We can't give adequate coverage of the event over there without violating WP:WEIGHT. The USDA article should just have a brief mention of this event with a link to this article which could provide fuller coverage. This is not a BLP, this is about an event, like the DOJ attourney firing scandal. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean we bury our heads in the sand and ignore everything less than 10 years old. The amount of coverage this has gotten guarantees it more notability than most of the things on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable and verifiable, and a valuable resource for the user public. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 22:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This appears to be a major event. I think waiting a few weeks to see how this develops is a fairly good, conservative position. We can look at this in August, and see if the article is still relevant and encyclopedic. AniMate 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and consider a WP:SNOW close of this AfD. Shirley Sherrod would be a BLP1E, but this appears to be a notable event in the course of the Obama Presidency, and certainly is for Andrew Breitbart and Tom Vilsack. At the very least, wait a few days or weeks before dismissing it as a flash in the pan. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Something - I'm not even sure what the right article to merge it into would be or even if that right article exists. I don't think the main USDA article is right. Maybe an article that covers all media controversies started by Breitbart (basically splitting Andrew Breitbart#Activism into its own article). I don't think this topic needs its own article, but I don't think it should be expunged either. --B (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does qualify as a article. I agree that it be move to Shirley Sherrod. Robert Moore (Robert Moore) 01:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The nomination's logic make no sense, at least now. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. That this was even nominated seems suspect. Badmachine (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable article that goes beyond one event and daily news - has been verified by multiple reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly notable event, at least for now. But let's revisit the article in six or twelve months to see if it still stands. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not biography, but history being written in a new way. Contributor01 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. This event has been reported on by multiple highly reliable sources. Easily passes the General notability guideline. LK (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this scrupulously referenced article about a significant aspect of "conservative" demagoguery and the power of "conservative" blowhards over government. Morenoodles (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a person who doesn't read the news (since Nov '04), God Bless Wikipedia for putting together a succinct, well-sourced article filling me in on what I'd missed on this subject... and God DAMN the deletion process for trying to prevent me from seeing it put together so usefully... Dekkappai (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable news story, with unique elements that easily transcend the subjects minor position. While we arent a crystal ball, we should keep this here as a separate article for at least a while, and if it makes sense in a month or two to merge this with another article (warning weird humor) like "dismantling of Foxnews", "execution of Brietbart on PBS", or even "Election of Sarah Palin as head of NAACP". anyway, once notable, always notable, we just dont know where this content will end up. for now, this should stand as notable now, and not just a news cycle headline.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The forced resignation incident created Shirley Sherrod's notability. The forced resignation is a touchstone which illustrates the political forces in play today. Not real? It got real very quickly for her. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:BLP1E says "write an article about the event, not the person", so it really doesn't apply here. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply either though: To quote said policy: "[...] including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate [...]". We have here a case where developments are noteworthy and lead to much coverage with a good chance that there will be a lasting notability. NOTNEWS seeks to remove articles and content that are clearly better suited for Wikinews, i.e. where it's obvious that the notability will vanish after a few days/weeks after news reports about it stopped. In this case, we cannot say for certain whether this will happen and the amount of coverage and discussion this subject created makes it a real possibility that lasting notability exists. If it turns out that this was incorrect, we can revisit this question in a few months. Regards So Why 07:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now - Skysmith (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand how the world's finest encyclopedia keeps coming up with reasons to delete these worthwhile and very important articles. KEEP so others can read about and understand how this woman lost her job because folks were jumping to conclusions. The woman and this issue are extremely noteworthy events in July 2010. 174.26.112.170 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 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) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penny and Aggie

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

No notability shown for this web comic. No significant real world impact shown. Mostly made up of plot summary and character bios. Sourced only by the comics own web site. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (prod removed 3 Aug 2008, "Edited in conjunction with a forum posting to show notability more clearly"). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. No reliable sources at all, just a mess. Could've been speedied. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:35, 27 July 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) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trax House Party

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

Appears to be an advertisement given that the user has only 6 edits and the company was founded in 2010. Google shows some results but I'm not sure if they're really talking about the company. Unreferenced. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there a speedy for events? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually not an event but a company. Nsk92 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in the absence of evidence of significant coverage by independent sources. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002–03 A.C. ChievoVerona season

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

Google shows only 3 sites; lacks notability. Also, it contains some peacocks. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Season articles for top-level sports teams are typically going to be notable enough for articles. There is always going to be coverage from news outlets, from pre-season predictions to reports during a season to post-mortem recaps. I would frankly be stunned if such coverage didn't exist for a team in a major soccer league like Serie A (hint: the exact title of the page may not be the best search term). This will probably lead to some hits that can help improve the article, if necessary. Also, the peacock terms can just be removed/reworded; I don't see why they should factor into the article's notability, which is what we are discussing here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Chievo was a top team in Serie A at that stage, and several of its players were included in national teams. Chievo per se is not a big club, but its seasons when it was a newcomer team at the Italian stage, deserve to be covered, simply because the league is such known internationally. Also, newcomers normally don't perform at Chievo's level in the period of 2001-2003. The second thing worth mentioning is that several season articles exist about a minor Romanian side, and nobody does anything about it. So, case should be closed. Thank you. Roslagen (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Giants2008. – Pee Jay 08:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Giant Snowman 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A season overview of a Serie A club is certainly notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:46, 28 July 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 Nomination withdrawn Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max von Braunmühl

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

I don't know motor racing and how it fits into WP:ATHLETE criteria-wise but this has been unsourced since 2005. It was prodded but prod removed because it "seemed notable". No recent news stories, Google archive shows little either and the Google books citations are circular. Is merely having competed in a season enough to be notable? Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is going to be a bit of a stereotype but since he's German, the fact that de:Max von Braunmühl is a red link may be telling (although I don't read German so I could just be ignorant). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NSPORT/Motorsports, Porsche Supercup is a fully professional series. -Drdisque (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NSPORT#Motorsports to clarify, but nevertheless, don't we need a reliable source for this one fact? Would Driver Database qualify? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedsport Magazine and motorsport.com corroborate that he competed in Porsche Supercup in 2004. -Drdisque (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 23 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranga Ediriwickrama

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

Fails the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Australian Rules Football. The article uses its crystal ball to say he'll be important, but actually he was injured and never played in the AFL.[22] He got a smattering of coverage in the local paper over a couple of years, but this player was never notable. Fences&Windows 09:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 09:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at the Google results alone I would have thought he's notable, but your rationale makes sense. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i would still consider him notable. he is the first AFL player of Sri Lankan decent —Preceding unsigned comment added by OorjaNights (talk • contribs) 09:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. MC Rocks (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable under the WP:GNG due to his unusual heritage and junior performances and also the NSW scholarship scheme. Is still on the Cats' player list, so could make his debut in the near future. Your nomination is also misleading, as I wouldn't call having a story about him, not just mentioning him, in the largest circulation daily paper in the country only "a smattering of coverage in the local paper".The-Pope (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets the general notability guideline through having substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Two of the major Australia newspapers devoted articles entirely to him. Also, Geelong is a major city of 200,000 inhabitants so to dismiss its major newspaper as merely local coverage is not really appropriate. Nor is the charge of WP:CRYSTAL sustainable. CRYSTAL is only for unverifiable speculation, but every statement in the article is sourced properly. Reyk _YO! 13:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. I am the creator of this article. Reyk _YO! 13:31, 21 July 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. Scott Mac 09:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Massey

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

By virtue of once playing four minutes in a professional league, this candidate probably passes WP:ATHLETE (and its lengthy but equally useless successor WP:NSPORTS). I'm nominating for two reasons. Firstly on the grounds of WP:BLP1E. He literally had five minutes of fame, and given that he has no squad number, that is unlikely to change in the near future. Secondly, it is a long established (although often ignored) principle at AfD that the general notability guideline overrides field-specific sub-guidelines such as WP:NSPORTS, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he meets that. --W F C-- 09:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --W F C-- 09:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Delete per WP:REALITYTV. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: may marginally pass WP:NSPORTS, but certainly not the more important WP:GNG. However, as the case of Ben Kudjodji showed, there is absolutely no chance that this article will be deleted. Although on the off chance that it is, there are literally hundreds of articles about players who have played four minutes or less that will also have to go. Big Dom 09:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, if this is non-admin closed it will go straight to DRV. AfD is not a vote; for their opinions to be given much consideration, contributors need to justify their positions with guidelines or policy, and where appropriate explain why people who have a different interpretation might be wrong. --W F C-- 09:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. You and I do not always agree, but I think we both know that ATHLETE and now NSPORTS are often abused at AfD. Big Dom 09:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet incident the other day aside, I don't think we really disagree that much. We just have two extremely different ways of trying to achieve the same thing; a more credible notability guide for footballers than the one we have. --W F C-- 10:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Nobody could say that either of our methods is wrong, and we do share a common goal. It's a pity that neither of us seems to be making much headway though. Not sure what you mean by the sockpuppet incident, but I'm sure it was something and nothing? Big Dom 10:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. --W F C-- 10:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking it would be worth trying incubation for a few months. WP:BLP1E is a policy which overrules WP:NSPORTS, probably leading to a delete outcome as things stand. However, the new season is almost ready to start, and he may well play more games in it, which would overcome this barrier and leave him firmly notable. As such, incubation is probably a good way forward. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"leave him firmly notable" – no, it absolutely wouldn't. Passing NSPORTS does not guarantee that a subject is notable; the guideline page states that quite clearly in the first paragraph. The only way a footballer can be firmly notable is if they are significantly covered in reliable sources. Big Dom 18:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thee are various ways of interpreting the guideline, but the Association football bit says that "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." I took that to mean that passing GNG isn't necessary for notability in this case, so an article could be created once BLP1E was no longer an issue. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much point in incubation. Nobody is arguing for deletion on the quality of the article (the simple fact is that he's played so little football that nobody has bothered to write about his earlier life yet). As for BLP1E, it says:

...if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

He doesn't have a first team squad number, so as far as I see it he is likely to remain low-profile. Any argument to the contrary is WP:CRYSTAL in my opinion. If he were loaned out it would still be WP:CRYSTAL. But in that instance it could more credibly be argued that he is likely to become a higher profile individual, and therefore incubation might be the way to go. For what it's worth I doubt he will be loaned out, because he is still a schoolboy at the Harefield Academy [23]. --W F C-- 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, he technically passes WP:ATHLETE, but unlike Ben Kudjodji, his pro career is not yet over...Giant Snowman 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL for the fallacy of that argument. The fact that he has not been given a Watford squad number for 2010-11 and is indeed going to be studying at Harefield Academy (a bona fide school) weakens that approach yet further. --W F C-- 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massey does have a squad number - 39[24] - so please stop repeating that he doesn't. And the fact that he is studying at the Harefield Academy is irrelevant to first team prospects: "the Hornets first and second year scholars also attend for a day-and-a-half, even if they are part of Malky Mackay’s first team plans."[25] Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to the official site is an old link, as evidenced by the fact that players such as Jay DeMerit, Nathan Ellington and Will Hoskins are in the picture. This is the current state of play. He has not been given a number this season, and that's only likely to change when he is in contention for at least a place on the bench. Secondly, while Harefield has no impact on a player's first team prospects at Watford, the commitment to ensure that young professionals continue to attend does substantially reduce the chances of a school-age player going out on loan, which is the point I was trying to make above. --W F C-- 21:45, 23 July 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) 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rumer (musician)

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

Unsourced article about non-notable artist who is yet to release any music. This was apparently written as a promotional piece by her agent and/or close fan, and has already been speedy deleted once. Unfortunately her record label (Atlantic) doesn't seem to consider her notable enough to list on their site.(Search results) --DAJF (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long list of maintance tags! She certainly isn't notable yet. Delete. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete. no citations OorjaNights (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created by someone stating him/herself to be an employee of Atlantic, thereby falling foul of WP:COI - or misrepresenting her/himself. That user (Kensingdoom) seems to have disappeared and to have been replaced by another (Rumerfans) whose name strongly suggests COI, whether or not it is a different person. I feel the whole article was promotional in purpose, and in its de-puffed state is worthless - if it had any value before. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 21 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USA Truck

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

Nothing of apparent note here. The sources provided are thin: the company's own website, a press release, a general company note on Yahoo Finance and a link to their page on a training provider they partner with. My searches turn up little more: some minor notes on the stock and press releases regarding personell movements. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1980 hits on Gnews. Dewritech (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see press releases and stock updates. I do not see substantial coverage (of the company) in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: see Forbes, The Boston Globe, Reuters India, etc. Dewritech (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - All three are stock updates with virtually no information about the company, only the performance of the stock. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:28, 10 July 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) 00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News appears to turn up solid coverage, such as USA Truck, Inc. Receives Grainger's 2009 Carrier of the Year Award, USA Truck Comments On Jury Verdict in Contract Dispute, USA Truck Puts Money Where Mouth Is.(Offers highest salaries in trucking industry). Swarm^Talk 09:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Of the three, the last one looks like a source. The first is a file not found that I can't resolve. The second is a press release. - SummerPhD (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lots of press, but nothing I can find that provides significant coverage about the company. Nuujinn (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of their trucks are on the road so there is some reason to keep. I know this is not quoting Wikipedia policy but this is a special point. RIPGC (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As soon as those trucks generate significant coverage in independent reliable sources you'll have a reason to keep. We need sources for the article: sources that are not the company itself, sources that give us substantial information about the company. So far, we can source to independent sources that the company is publicly traded. If we accept your assertion as a reliable source, we could add that they have their name on a lot of trucks. That's not much of an article, is it? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a video game, there would be lots of editors editing. There is plenty to write here. The company's business, management structure, financials, new developments into the company, effects of the recession on trucking and this company in particular. Delete it if you don't like the way it's written but keep it if the quality of writing is not a deciding factor but rather the potential. Truck you/Truck me. Ha ha! RIPGC (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this were a video game, we would still need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication as to what makes this company more (or even as) significant to the next one - coverage not really significant, only what you would expect for a normal company of it's size and age - not worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. Codf1977 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have ample significant coverage. More to those above are the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Again, the overwhelming majority of those hits are press releases from the company and coverage of the company's stock, not the company itself. That Wall Street Journal link is a company press release, not a WSJ article. The boston.com link (not a Boston Globe article) is about the company's stock. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point on the Wall Street article. The Boston Globe article, however, is not entirely about the company's stock. Here's an article from the International Business Times that may be of interest (although it looks like all but the first paragraph is a press release, it's still good information to be aware of and can likely be found in a non-press release form). This article could be helpful as well. Here's some company information from the New York Times. The large quantity of articles covering the company's financial situation (quarter earnings/losses, share prices) is an indicator that the company is fairly notable - for any trucking company that isn't the biggest, there are little ways for it to gain attention any way else. That said, I believe that there is just enough coverage out there to write a well-sourced and informative article (the attention drawn from business developments is very helpful in this). By the way, is this one a press release? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing special about this company, not notable enough. Getting some exposure in the business press happens to almost any company. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at some of the links above, do you think that they together meet GNG? Keep in mind that some are press releases. I based my !vote on the opinion that they did, but there is no doubt I could be wrong. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:50, 21 July 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! 07:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Although public stock listing is not a keep ticket anymore (WP:LISTED), I'd give it a chance: an apparently healthy, active medium-sized business ($158M market cap) must have something on it. It's name, perhaps, is googler's worst nightmare, couldn't they invent something odd like Kodak? East of Borschov 07:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Give it a chance? The article has been tagged for sources for over 2.5 years. That it "must" have something on it doesn't mean it does. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see the distinction between newspaper coverage of a company and newspaper coverage of the price of becoming a part-owner of the company --- especially when said newspaper coverage describes an event resulting from stock analyst reports, which are themselves third-party, independent sources about the company. Stephens Inc., referenced in the Boston Globe article, appear to have quite a reasonable amount of coverage of this company: [26]. cab (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Here's the distinction between coverage of the company and coverage of the stock: Coverage of the company will give us the opportunity to write an article on the company. Coverage on the stock will give us "USA Truck is a publicly traded company in the transportation sector, incorporated in Delaware. In the past five years, the company has met earnings expectations in all but three quarters. Two of the quarters it did not meet expectations were due to one-time charges resulting from regulatory changes. USA Truck's board of directors is seated for one year terms, renewed through stockholder votes. At the last board election, 87% of shares voted were voted via proxy..." Don't assume the articles behind the subscription wall are substantially different that what we've already seen here, we have articles of similar merit (actually, WSJ probably is more reliable, but whatever) written for similar purpose. Essentially, you're saying the company is notable because you can buy part of it. Does my supermarket's sales flyer make Green Giant canned corn notable? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes zero claims of notability. There are many millions of corporations in the world. Encyclopedia articles are about things that are interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 08:15, 29 July 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) 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Huston (Heisman Trophy Expert)

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

Subject has questionable notability; article also appears to have been created by the subject Jweiss11 (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertisement. It's quite interesting to mask POVs by using 'references' as the section header... should it be bjadonned? Kayau Voting IS evil 09:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - looks like self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OorjaNights (talk • contribs) 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can I promote my business on Wikipedia too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable individual. No substantial coverage. Laughable "references" section. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:09, 27 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LIFG training camp

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

This is an omnibus nomination for a (fraction of) the plethora of articles on non-notable terrorist training camps. These articles have been created by User:Geo Swan several years ago, and each one is based on a couple (often just one, in rare cases two or three) brief mentions of a given camp in the DoD Guantanamo documents (Guantanamo Combatant Status Review Tribunal/Administrative Review Board files). Ordinarily one might need to discuss whether these documents qualify as primary or secondary sources, etc, but here this is largely beside the point. Even under the most generous view of the sources, a couple of brief name drops does not even come close to significant specific and detailed coverage (not even by one source, not to mention multiple independent sources) required by WP:GNG. Each of these camps barely passes WP:V and would not even qualify for a redirect, since redirects are meant for likely search terms. The creator of these articles, User:Geo Swan, has been mentioning (in previous individual AfDs, to the deleting admins, at DRV etc) a global merge proposal that he created on March 29 of this year: Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?. However, no-one else appears to be interested in sifting through this pile of obscure mentions of non-notable camps, and the proposal page received only one comment by a user other than Geo Swan. Talk page merge proposals even on reasonably notable topics often attract very little participation, move at a glacial pace and often stagnate not leading to anything. In this case, given the multitude of these "training camp" articles on extremely obscure subjects, it is not reasonable for Geo Swan to expect the community to get involved in a line-by-line analysis of these brief mentions and in trying to create order out of chaos. The fact that this plethora of articles on extremely non-notable subjects have been sitting in mainspace for years is a significant problem. The only reasonable soution here is to userfy all this stuff into Geo Swan's userspace and let him slowly deal with sorting through this material at his own speed. If at some point someone comes along who shares his abiding passion for collecting every brief mention of a terrorist training camp, then great. For now the priority here should be to move all this material out of the mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torkhum training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Logar training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tabligi Jamaat training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sudar training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jaish-E-Mohammad training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camp Lajerg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shorandam training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samar Khaila training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Camp Thabit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kohtal training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moasqr Kari Bilal training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abu Nasir training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qulio Urdo training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tarik training camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
userify (at least). These stubs don't present any sources on the camps. The papers barely mention them. East of Borschov 08:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the caveat that if any editor wants a userfied copy to work on a merge, that request ought to be granted. These have been around far too long, with no evidence of progress.--SPhilbrick T 19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with right to userfy per nom. IQinn (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and if the article creator can proffer secondary sources on a particular camp they may be recreated. Abductive (reasoning) 08:16, 29 July 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) 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisandro Aloi

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

Delete. Unsourced BLP from a little over a year ago, which, on its face isn't all that long but I'm surprised we've allowed it under the current climate which has sternly frowned upon the creation of unsourced biographical texts. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can start by seeing what he claims for himself. Here's one of his websites and here's another. Both require Flash so I can't view either. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) .... The former website is uninformative; the latter has a long list of ostensible achievements. Similar lists, conveniently not using Flash, are here and here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No evidence of notability as architect found. --Elekhh (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V and is not notable. Pmedema (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellecid

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

Lkutaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is a brand of jeans. Article unreferenced with only a link to their website. No evidence of substantial coverage. Nothing more than a advert for the company. See the gallery of jeans for example. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The article is just spam, and the images are likely taken from a copyrighted source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any significant coverage to establish notability. This appears just to be an ad for the company. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 08:58, 21 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Billmaier

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

Azikate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is non-notable CEO. One of the sources is a Wikipedia mirror, the others only refer to him briefly. No substantial coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about him in reliable sources aside from business announcements such as this. He is quoted in some articles, but that isn't coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 21 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bexley RFC

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

I just prodded this article, but on second thoughts the creator is almost guaranteed to contest, so I'm bringing it here for discussion instead. Prod concern was: Non-notable club – the provided sources do not establish notability. Please see the related discussion on my talk page from when the article was at articles for creation. AJ Cham 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page discussion copied here for ease of reference

Hello, you appear to have declined my article for the following reason:

"This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria A7 and/or guidelines on organizations and companies. Please provide more information on why the organization is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you."

From the link "guidelines on organizations and companies" under "Decisions based on verifiable evidence" it says:

"Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."

Via the references, I have shown that the Club has attracted notice from the press, the English Rugby Football Union and the Bexley Council. I would imagine there are many more notable references in non-internet related publications such as Rugby World.

also under the heading "Additional considerations are":

"Nationally famous local organizations: Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or local chapter of a club) may be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."

There are many articles in the local press that cover Bexley RFC and it's local rivals as well as club developments, achievements and results.

"Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive."

Bexley RFC has a long History and has been in existence for 53 years there are generally around 100+ members and at senior level alone attract 45 to 60 players every week plus a significantly greater amount of Junior and Mini's. achievemnts have taken time to come but through dedication and investment in youth. Bexley have been successful in Junior tournaments.

Please Can you explain to me why this article is not notable.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmjco (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a dictionary definition of notable is not very useful to us – by it's nature, whether something is "worthy of notice" is entirely subjective, hence why we have defined standards to help us make such judgements objectively (although we are human, so a degree of subjectivity is inevitable). The basic standard is significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources you provided are:

Rugby Football Union. The page in question appears to be a Bexley RFU press release, and is therefore not independent.

Bexley RFC (x2). Of course, not independent.

News Shopper(x2). Local press, in general, is not unacceptable but may be held to a higher level of scrutiny than national coverage. With sports clubs in particular, I don't think local press carries much, if any, weight in terms of notability. There are thousands of small teams in the UK alone that will get substantial coverage in the local paper; even school or pub teams. This is of course where my own subjectivity has come into it, but I notice I am not the first to decline your submission on grounds of notability so maybe others share my opinion. Furthermore, as you quoted yourself, "Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."

Dartford Times. Trivial mention in an article about a former player. Not significant coverage.

Bexley council. The document is 52 pages long so you'll forgive me for only skimming it, but as far as I can tell this is an analysis of all sports fields in the borough - it acknowledges that Bexley RFC exists, but I don't see how it could possibly indicate any degree of notability beyond that.

I hope you understand my position, but if you have any further questions feel free to ask. Regards, AJ Cham 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply and I understand your position, however I hope you also understand that I am purely trying to get a article published about a subject that I feel passionately about.

Comment:I fully appreciate that, but I can't let that sway my judgment. No offence intended, but have you considered that your passion for the subject may have clouded yours?

My first point is that I have not posted a dictionary definition of notable but I have in fact quoted the Wikipedia “guidelines on organizations and companies” as directed in the decline notice.

Comment:You did indeed refer to our policies, but you began the paragraph with the dictionary definition, which I felt was irrelevant. I see now that the guideline page does use the phrase "worthy of notice" as well, but even still it isn't worth focussing on that phrase too much.

The RFU page is not a Bexley Press release but in fact an RFU page dedicated to the club there should be a page for all member clubs. This shows however that the RFU recognise the Bexley RFC amongst all other member clubs and the value to the game and local community.

Comment:I disagree. The page discusses the club in the first person and is advertising player vacancies. It was clearly written by a representative of the club and is intended to promote the club. In any case, the RFU's recognition of membership is not indicative of notability. They recognise more than 3,000 clubs – I'm sure looking at it objectively you would acknowledge that not all of them are notable.

The Bexley RFC links are not intended to show the clubs notability but are related to quotes from the history.

Comment:That's fine (to an extent – see WP:Primary sources), I only mentioned them for completeness.

The News Shopper articles refer to the clubs and effectively backs up the main article through the commitment to developing youth in the sport and the history of the club.

Comment:My concern was not the content of the articles, but whether the source was significant for purposes of establishing notability. I stand by my previous statement.

The Dartford Times article refers to a player developed by the club who has represented his country at a national level. Harry Fry is still connected to the club and he helps train the juniors when possible. This article further backs up the article and the clubs commitment to the local youth and how this commitment helps the sport at a National level.

Comment:I'm sorry, but you're stretching things a bit now. The article says nothing more than that Fry played for Bexley as a five-year-old. Everything else you've stated is interpolation and not supported by the article at all. Also, notability is not inherited – that a former player has gone on to greater things says nothing to the notability of Bexley. Furthermore, even if notability could be inherited, there would be nothing to inherit from Harry Fry as he does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:ATHLETE.

The Bexley council document goes further than recognising the club exists, there is also a passage on page 21 that says “It is recognised that Bexley RFC plays an active role in developing rugby in the borough, and has a long term ambition to return to a local ground”. This document clearly recognises the impact Bexley have on the game.

Comment:Well, as I said I only skimmed the document. Nevertheless, that a council might be interested in the activities and plans of any local organisation is nothing much to shout about.

Finally I have noticed that the article “English Rugby Union System” under “The System” it refers to the league setup in England and although not complete contains articles on leagues involved. Within those leagues that have articles created so far are the teams that are involved, with links to those teams that have articles created already. I would have thought that the Bexley RFC article needs to be created to help Wikipedia complete this article on Rugby Union.

Comment:There are, unfortunately, a huge number of articles on here that ought not to be, and some of the club articles you refer may fit that description. It's an uphill struggle to keep up with them. However, the existence of these articles is cause to try to solve the problem, not add to it.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmjco (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my comments inline for clarity. One final point, have you considered that a more specialised wiki, such as http://rugbyunion.wikia.com/wiki/Rugby_Union_Wiki, may be a more appropriate location for an article such as this? AJ Cham 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Cham 17:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article was turned down at Articles for creation many times before being created anyway. Amateur club with no apparent notability. noq (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends as I am no expert on the English system, there is still a chance that the club can be deemed notable. If the club is a member of the RFU, that could point to notability, as it will then probably be a feeder club to one of the larger teams. Also amateur clubs in rugby are embraced rather than used as a point of non-notability. Rugby union has only gone professional in the last ten years at the top tier, and amateur is not a dirty word in the sport. I agree that many of the cites are not very strong to say the least, but that does not merit a delete in itself. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the deletionists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Irish Amateur. oh and while I'm here I may as well vote.... The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, it does have the 3rd party sources in there for it to be considered notible. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? Please refer to the above discussion where I explained in detail to the author why I don't believe the references demonstrate notability. The only source that shows significant coverage is News Shopper, and attempts to find others makes it pretty clear that this is a club of only local interest. As I said above, even some school and pub teams can expect similar coverage in local press. The AFD for London Irish Amateur was inappropriate, but is not relevant here, as it has not been suggested that this article be deleted on account solely of Bexley's amateur status. In fact I'd taken no steps to find out whether the club was amateur or professional; it's of no concern.

In response to FruitMonkey, I sincerely doubt that RFU membership should be taken as an indication of notability, as I explained to Mcmjco. AJ Cham 12:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I spent a good amount of time searching Google news archives, and nothing of any note was there. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and this subject doesn't have what it takes to cross it. God only knows how many subjects I could write about, and are what I think are important would deservedly have a WP:Afd tag slapped on them. SauliH (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time I concur with FruitMonkey that amateur is not the issue here, and in no way should be construed to be the reason for my agreement to delete. Notability is. SauliH (talk) 04:14, 25 July 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saigado Publishing

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

Non-notable one-person dōjinshi "circle." Fails WP:NOTE, WP:ORG, and WP:CREATIVE. Being self-published and sold in small numbers at events like Comiket, dōjinshi rarely receives coverage by reliable third-party sources except in exceptional circumstances. —Farix (t | c) 11:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article contains three things: the mention of his work as a character designer, original research, and redlinks to non-notable H works. Removing the redlinks and OR results in a two-sentence stub with nothing in it other than duplication of content that should be in the production section of Boku no Pico anyway. --erachima talk 12:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the anime/manga Wikia. Or to Wikia Annex. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not appropriate to transwiki something that is a WP:BLP violation. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You didn't claim a BLP violation in the deletion rationale. And this is a group (of one), rather than a bio. (ie. a corporation of one employee) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:N -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any potential in this article as it is non-notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 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. I'm going with delete, as this is a BLP in pretty bad shape. —fetch ·comms 01:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Shepard (American politician)

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

I'm from Minnesota, and I have to admit that I have heard late-night radio ads by this guy. However, not much has been writte about him in reliable sources. He's quite "nutty", has a big ego, and he only seems to be notable in his own mind; indeed, much of this article was written by two SPAs, at least one of whom is probably Shepard or someone closely linked with him: [27] and [28]. So, delete per WP: N and WP: SPAM. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one has so many WP:BLP issues that it would be foolish to keep it. The persons who wrote the article clearly enjoy dredging up things from his past, but even if it was positive or promotional, he's a perennial candidate who has tried but not succeeded in winning a race. Go do your mudslinging somewhere else. Mandsford 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, by "do your mudslinging somewhere else" you are referring to the author(s) of the article, not to me, right? Stonemason89 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true Stone. Sorry not to respond to you sooner, I've been on the road. Mandsford 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is "nutty" as most people define it. This dentist sold his practice in 1975 and apparently entered a life of crime (sexual assault drug possession arson) and politics as a Republican. While a fugitive in Italy, he sought office in MN, pardons for his crimes and made independent peace initiatives in Europe. Needless to say the media took note: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Notability is the requirement, not nobility. Losers, criminals and wackos are often notable and receive significant coverage from independent sources. Although not reflected in most deletion discussions, inclusion in wikipedia is not a reward for good works or success; it simply acknowledges notability. Eudemis (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not able to get the link in footnote 1 to open, which it really needs to do. I'll further add my sentiment that active politicians are public figures and inherently notable. The lowest of all possible bars should be placed for the inclusion of politicians in Wikipedia, as the presentation of their biographies here is a great public service. Carrite (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The policy regarding notability of politicans is in WP:POLITICIAN, and includes this: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" Elected (and appointed) office-holders at the national level are inherently notable, but running for office is simply running for office. In law, public figures are entitled to less of a protection against defamation of character than private individuals, and truth is a defense to libel, but neither legal principle has any bearing on Wikipedia's policy set in WP:BLP. Certainly, he's made news, particularly in Minnesota where people seem to be charmed with his wacky escapades, but is he notable for being a candidate who has gotten into legal trouble? USA Today notwithstanding, in my opinion, no. Mandsford 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with leave to rewrite a neutral non-BLP-violating article. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Eudemis - "nutty" is not a reason to delete. Lots of nutty people would not have articles. If that were true, I'd have to nominate Andrew Breitbart and Sharron Angle for deletion. But there is some evidence that this is a person who gets into the news from time to time, but who hasn't done anything notable. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. All he's done is get his name into a couple of congressional primary elections, and lose a bunch of times. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. The other random trivial news stories are not notable, and not referenced. The primary reference that this BLP article is based on is a dead link. SnottyWong ^verbalize 23:31, 29 July 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 (G7) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Nowikovsky

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

This article is a potential WP:BLP violation. The subject's previous positions are not all that notable, it appears that the crux of the small amount of notability is that the subject was investigated for making an illegal payment to sons of Sharon. The article author is on a major advocacy crusade on WP, and this is one of the first of many AfD's of BLP figures to be coming up. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have a problem with this article if Der Stern does indeed make the allegations stated in the article. But when this is backed up with footnote producing a dead link to ANOTHER publication altogether, that's when I start to wonder if the BLP problems outweigh the merits of the piece. Fix it or kick it. Carrite (talk) 20:02, 21 July 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) 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands at International tournemants

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

Badly formatted title, and redundant page: the information can be found at the main team page and at Netherlands at the FIFA World Cup. igordebraga ≠ 01:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely redundant to Netherlands national football team#Competitive record (and seemingly copied from there as well). (Not to mention that "international" shouldn't be capitalised and that it's spelt tournaments.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 08:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad copy and paste job with no precedent amongst other countries. Completely redundant. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Giant Snowman 20:26, 22 July 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. RN 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Emmanuel Debergh

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

WP:N. No secondary, independent sources about the sportsman and organizational head. There is an article on fr.wikipedia but it is also unsourced. There are a few references to the sport itself that get news, all that I've found so far in French. [47]. Barring sources, I rec deletion. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Delete, I can't find anything worthwhile. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France Sport Blowgun Association was also deleted last year. --Milowent (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - there is no coverage about this individual. He is credited with writing some material here, but I can find no coverage about him in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Darn, this really shouldn't have needed to be relisted (it delays the total success of Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue/April 2008), even an ardent inclusionist like me is in favor of deletion. Hopefully a few editors will review and add their views so the consensus becomes clear.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Arguably, this didn't even need to be put through an AFD, and PROD would have been sufficient. His only claim to notability int he article is related to the France Sport Blowgun Association which has been found to lack notability for inclusion, so there really is no strong assertion of notability, nor the likelihood of controversy over the deletion that would necessitate an AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment With respect to PROD: I considered it, but I tend to exercise a little extra care where the potential sources aren't in a lanugage I'm fluent in. Perhaps I was overcautious, however. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - When an article has been around a few years and never been prodded, I think being cautious can't hurt. Perhaps its never prodded because no one knows its there; alternatively, its because people know its there and think it should remain.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree in general. This particlular article is a special case as the organisation was already processed through an AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 21 July 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) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Army of mice

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

Contested PROD. I've done an additional search to try and find any reliable sources or significant coverage, but I came up empty – a lot of forum postings and directory listings, but nothing from any reputable (online) source like a review or anything. I don't think this passes for notability. –MuZemike 00:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) –MuZemike 00:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An exact search of reliable sources turns up only two relevant results, and both are merely summary pages. It exists, but I can't find any significant coverage for this title. --Teancum (talk) 11:55, 21 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Mora

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

I can find no RS for this person, just wiki mirrors, there are other people with the same name,such as a felon in Miami and a Columbian general, but cannot find anything on this Spanish diplomat. Appears not to satisfy WP:BIO –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is some mention of him in sources such as this and this which would verify him. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the first source [[48] is a self published book by a blogger, {http://www.la-monfortcloa.es/}, and the second merely mentions a judge in Aragon called Jose Enrique Mora Mateo a different person, [[49]. I don't think that these really confer any notability. The European Union website has nothing. El Mundo and El Pais have nothing. Neither does the Spanish Foreign Ministry [50]. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is published by John Wiley & Sons - far from self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has two excellent sources; he looks like a notable diplomat. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - certainly WP:V (as per Bearian), but with the amount of coverage thin I'm not optimisic this will grow beyond the barest stub. Hope someone proves me wrong. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is verifiable but very minimal. I feel that subjects should have more than passing mentions. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 00:12, 14 July 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) 00:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient amount of specific and detailed coverage for passing WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 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 Brigham Young University—Idaho. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brigham Young University–Idaho Student Activities

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

Organization that does not seem to meet the general notability guidelines. Full of original research and only uses primary sources. No coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only "sources" here are from the university's handbook. If anything, merge some of the article with the main university article. A8x (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 14 July 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) 00:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Brigham Young University#Student life: I couldn't find any non-primary sources, so fails WP:Notability in my book. TheTito ^Discuss 06:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as previous editor stated, but to Brigham Young University—Idaho#Student life. This article could be summarized in far less space as part of the main article. It is not the equivalent of an intercollegiate athletics program and lacks any notability outside the school. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but be sure to merge it to Brigham Young University–Idaho not Brigham Young University. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for pointing that out...I modified my statement to reflect that as well. BYU and BYU-Idaho are two distinct and separate schools. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (preferably) as very promotionally written and utterly commonplace, or Redirect/Merge to the school's article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:11, 29 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florida District Key Club International

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

Non-notable club lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Tried to redirect to Key Club, but article keeps being recreated by author and IP sockpuppet. ttonyb (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 14 July 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) 00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Keep. - This page is all of four days old and the log looks like it's the subject of an edit war. Is this organization notable? Give them a chance to make their case. Don't bite the noobs, don't create a hostile editing environment, etc. Key Club is a massive organization and I don't doubt that at least some district-level organizations of the group can get over the notability bar, given time to marshall their efforts at scouring up third-party coverage. There isn't even a discussion page started to explain why this article is the subject of a notability challenge. For goodness sake, start the page and open a dialog... Please withdraw this nomination, open a dialog with the creator, explain the situation, and give them 30 days to source things out. See if they can. It's way too early to pass judgment here, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Carrite makes a good argument. However, the creator has been on WP for 1 1/2 years and IMO should know how important sources are. The editors have been fighting over nonsense while they should have been finding reliable sources. The nom was a week and a half ago and I hate to be repetitive but that's ample time to at least give the impression they're interested in establishing notability. Meanwhile this is in article space further casting doubt on WP's quality. If they add reliable sources before AfD close I might change my vote, but at this point the article should be moved to a user talk page so they can work on it. For my own part I Googled and didn't find anything notable. Lionel (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Key Club International, per policy as clearly stated at WP:CLUB: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping (or even redirecting) state chapters of national orgs does not have consensus. Also, there are zero claims of notability in the article for this chapter; it should have been speedily deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 08:48, 29 July 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) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BMV (singer)

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish WP:N. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. There appears to be a conflict of interest with in original author. J04n(talk page) 09:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is the same subject with a different title (by the same author):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 09:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 09:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 08:06, 18 July 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) 00:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable recording artist with no substantial coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:18, 23 July 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. extransit (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Adornetto

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

Rejected speedy deletion G11. Should be assessed at AfD. I express no personal opinion on this. Polargeo (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to be well sourced. The subject has published op-ed pieces and received some international attention. [51][52][53][54]Eudemis (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [comment redacted per WP:BLP, doesn't give any real reason for deleting]58.160.82.98 (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple independent mentions. Misarxist (talk) 16:04, 20 July 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) 00:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple source mentions, clearly over the notability bar. Carrite (talk)
Keep sources provided look adequate, as well a search at PW seems to indicate good coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is not a whole lot of coverage, but it is spread over the period of several years and, in at least a few cases, is fairly detailed. Passes WP:BIO, even if the case is not very strong. Nsk92 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:20, 25 July 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) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkYoung

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

Fails WP:CORP and the general notability guideline. Although it appears to be referenced, none of the references amount to the "significant coverage in reliable sources" required to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't the sources demonstrate notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaholmblad (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because there is no "significant coverage" of the subject. Please read the pages I linked to above. – ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is about a Brussels-based think tank without political or national allegiance which was founded in 2007. It is a non-profit organization that lobbies for young people in Europe. Its stated aim is to make Brussels aware of what young people think; to make the voices of young Europeans heard in European level decision-making and to make Europe think young. No opinion yet as to the notability of this organization, but it does seem to be written in rather peacock language. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment indeed so as the creator of the article has a massive conflict of interest having written papers for the organisation. – ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 14 July 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) 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources provided do not constitute significant coverage in reliable source, and I was not able to find any. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:48, 21 July 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) 01:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

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

Claims to have some notability but I'm not sure it is. It seems to be advertising the new certification rather then educating. I've trimmed it a bit but think that it isn't notable and still should go. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 July 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) 00:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "certification" is brand new and hundreds like it are created and die each year. Once it has a track record and gains notability it might qualify, although that's a bit like saying every continuing education seminar also qualifies for a Wikipedia entry. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:49, 21 July 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 List of Phineas and Ferb episodes. —fetch ·comms 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas and Ferb: Summer Belongs To You

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

Article clearly fails WP:GNG (no reliable secondary sources) and WP:CRYSTALL. The article is simply too soon. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that will come soon, be patient. It is an hour long episode and I have placed it as High importance for project Disney. Another person has said he knows that it be an article soon. On WP:CRYSTAL, that is a fail, there is already a 15-second preview and 2 songs that have been seen as sneak peeks on Youtube. Isabella and Lego Liker _{Whatcha doin'?} 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a source for the summary from zap2it. Isabella and Lego Liker _{Whatcha doin'?} 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Source has been added about its sneak peak at Comic-Con on July 25. Isabella and Lego Liker _{Whatcha doin'?} 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's a blog entry thus not reliable.~~ Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better source was found from the Comic-Con offical schedule on its site. Isabella and Lego Liker _{Whatcha doin'?} 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The added sources have only passing mentions about the article, thus not satisfy WP:GNG. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 14 July 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) 00:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know Are fan pages acceptable for Wikipedia? If so, keep. If not, delete and start deleting the 100,000 other fan pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of episodes. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, then undo it in a few weeks, since the article will very notable by then. Also, it is not a fan page, it is a true episode of the show. Isabella and Lego Liker _{Whatcha doin'?} 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Too soon. Bring it back after it's aired and we have solid production/plot/ratings info to justify an article. Also of note is that you're overestimating just how notable it is; it'll get zero official reviews, lowering it's notability to less then even normal episodes. If it weren't for the slightly above-average press and production material relating to this, this would be a justified permanent deletion/merge. Trust me, I've been writing about this specific subject for nearly a year. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Delete. Article may be returned to mainspace when serious analysis by secondary sources is demonstrated, not forecast. Abductive (reasoning) 08:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON with leave to recreate the article after it has actually aired, assuming it gets substantial coverage in reliable sources. SnottyWong ^gossip 23:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Phineas and Ferb episodes. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas and Ferb Hawaiian Vacation

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

Article fails WP:GNG (no reliable secondary sources). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 July 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) 00:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Phineas and Ferb episodes, which already contains most of the information in this article. Editors are free to smerge anything that must be added. Deor (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Phineas and Ferb episodes, as Deor says. It is a children's cartoon. No, it is one episode of a children's cartoon. And there is already a brief episode description at List of Phineas and Ferb episodes or, if there isn't, there is a place to write one. The episode descriptions at that article are little shorter than this article. So perhaps the passage "Phineas and Ferb go with Candace and along the way, they ride a few waves with pro surfer Laird Hamilton" will have to be deleted. Will the world suffer? Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Phineas and Ferb episodes. No analysis by secondary sources is demonstrated. Abductive (reasoning) 08:51, 29 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Optimization

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

A google search gets you results for "self optimization", but not in the terms being described in this article. It's a pretty generic term. PROD was declined, so turning to AFD. Until a single source can be provided to verify this term and/or its importance, this is just pure WP:NEO and should be deleted. This article is also an expansion of Optimi, a similarly CSD'd article written by the same apparent WP:SPA account. — Timneu22 · talk 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The term is not a neologism, it is recognised and used within the field of mobiile telephone technology, as indicated in two references to the article and in the existing wikipedia article on Self-Optimizing Networks. While a merge to that article would be an option, the subject is possibly worth an article in its own right, if expanded by someone competent to do so (which rules me out). Having had an article CSD'd (not "similarly", because this one hasn't been) is no justification for deleting this effort. Jimmy Pitt talk 07:38, 15 July 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) 00:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mark as a stub. Wikify. Needs expansion. Legit concept for inclusion in an encyclopedia, I think. Carrite (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into the appropriate article, whatever that is. Should every technical term have its own Wikipedia page? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 21 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum R&B Party

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

Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 July 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) 00:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. Aspects (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aspects. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 July 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Hits 2000

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

Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 July 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) 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. Aspects (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aspects. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 July 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. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manny the Hippie

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

His 15 minutes of fame was up a long time ago. At best this should be a redirect to something to do with Letterman, but I doubt it is even notable enough for that. The-Pope (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete amussing possibly notable Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 132 google news hits[55] between 1996 and 2000. Once notable always notable. One of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia is to be a historical record. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, so I'll expect to see a few of those 132 actually in the article soon then? Remember a key policy of this encyclopedia is verifiability of that historical record. Also re-read WP:NOTNEWS - 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.' What is his enduring notability, considering that his article is linked to only one mainspace article and not mentioned at all on any Letterman related page?The-Pope (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - [56] ^walk victor falk^talk 20:55, 18 July 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) 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the SF Chronicle's website (SF Gate) runs a story with "Manny the Hippy" as its headline subject with no further elaboration, dude's notable. Carrite (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an interesting article. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:57, 21 July 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) 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Retz

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

Unfortunately Wikipedia requires more than maybes and rumours. This has a total lack of the coverage required by WP:GNG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttah (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 July 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As even the article states the individual is unknown outside of France, I would hope a French-reading Wikipedian could look at these sources: [57] and [58] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From Google Books, the first two returns are histories of the voyages of Nicolas Baudin to Australia in 1800-1802 - Guillame Retz was a crewman on his ship; the third is a history of 14th and 15th century Brittany. The fourth and fifth are books by authors who died in 1637 and 1679 respectively. As for the Google returns, the only remotely reliable sources are cycling results for 'BONVALET GUILLAUME, RETZ BIKE CLUB' Nuttah (talk) 03:21, 21 July 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) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Gilles de Rais (or Retz) was a serial killer of children who was the inspiration for the Bluebeard (Barbe Bleu) story. I suspect this is a hoax, as there are no pre-2010 internet hits for the name, and most references seem to be allusions to the museum on cellphone text sites. The two illustrations for the article (one of which appears to be a picture upon which someone has ejaculated) are claimed by the uploader to be original works, and some of the pictures in the collages displayed at the museum site look suspiciously modern. If this is not a hoax, then it can be relisted once more reliable sources are added, but I strongly suspect that won't be the case. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:14, 21 July 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) 01:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sim Redmond Band

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

Contested PROD. Article still has no reliable independent third party sources provided to demonstrate notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 July 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) 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. None of their albums charted according to Billboard. In gsearches I see some small amount of coverage in reliable sources, but not enough for an article in my opinion. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:37, 21 July 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) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pyungkang Cheil Presbyterian Church

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

Article is. . . well, I'm not sure what it is. It looks like a advertisement for the church, unsupported by reliable sources. I'm unable to find any either, just press releases and self-published material. TN X Man 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's some non-trivial coverage in Korean [59][60], but it seems rather promotional and I don't recognise any of the newspapers (NewsPower? Gyeongdo Ilbo?). Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 01:38, 15 July 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) 00:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NewsPower appears to be a rather new and unknown niche (Christian) newswire service. I don't see any coverage of this church in mainstream South Korean newspapers or news services (like Yonhap, Chojoongdong/Hankyungoh, or the big regional dailies). cab (talk) 07:56, 23 July 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) 01:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed abd el-salam El-Omary

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

Egyptian architect now turned to novel writing. Three links but all are in Arabic. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 July 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) 00:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have cleaned it up some, however I would like to mention that the article is an almost word-for-word copy of the Google Chrome translation of the source about his death [61]. I have included the translation in a collapsible box below for reference. Mauler90 _talk 01:56, 21 July 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 close -- wrong forum. Will not copy it to Requested moves because that will likely not be granted per article naming convention. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oberhasli goat

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

Intent is to move Oberhasli (goat) to this page title, Oberhasli goat to standardize article name as are the other registered goats, with parenthesis unnecessary. Will do redirects also, upon availability of move-to name. I deleted the redirect I found here, thinking I could just move it to the then-empty (but existing) page title, but that does not work, I see. duff 00:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as keep. First, this is the wrong forum for discussing deletion of redirects to make way for a move. The correct methods are discussed here. Second, I disagree with the move. "Goat" is not part of the name of the animal, it's included parenthetically because it's required for disambiguation. Steven Walling 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Goat is not part of its name and is only for disambiguation purposes from Oberhasli. Mauler90 _talk 01:19, 21 July 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. There is a numerical majority for "keep" here, and so calling a "delete" here is due to the article's shortcomings in meeting policy requirements. In particular, the question is whether the article is a stub (allowed on Wikipedia), or a dictionary definition (not allowed on Wikipedia). Reviewing the article, and the discussion here, I find that in this case it is the "deletionist" camp who have the correct interpretation of policy: this article does not meet the criteria to qualify as a WP:STUB. In addition, the article's content is perilously close to being a rephrasing of the title that speedy deletion criterion A3 would apply.

The critical policy and guideline sentences I have applied are:

From WP:NOT: "Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well."
From WP:STUB: "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information".

The entirity of current content is a sentence saying the "biblical money management" is money management from the use of biblical scripture. This is a definition self-evident from the article's title. There is nothing wrong about suggesting two books as references, but they have not really been used to source anything substantial in the article, simply because the article contains nothing substantial. The article has no content beyond the definition, which violates the line from WP:NOT, and without any more content I cannot see any information which could be considered "useful", and which would qualify the article as a valid stub entry.

The closure here is without prejudice against recreation, because there appears to be an informed consensus that the subject of Biblical money management is notable enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical money management

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

This is some sort of WP:NEO, ~~written as WP:ESSAY, dripping with WP:OR and arriving at a conclusion. My gosh, where's the CSD for these?~~ and nothing more than a dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Timneu22 · talk 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also, seems to fail NPOV, by sing the phrase "God’s view of our everyday handling of money". The article implies that this may be an area of study somewhere, but beyond that, it looks like somebody just made this up one day. Lastly, the references listed seem to be used to define the terms that the article creator uses to arrive at his conclusion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... this is a bit tricky. The article is pretty much everything Wikipedia isn't for balled up into one, but the subject does appear to be a thing that actually exists and we should probably have a page on (see this article on the increase in christian financial advisement services), though it might be better placed at a different title. Redirection to Crown Financial Ministries, the primary users of the term (and who have a by all appearances decent article) will probably satisfy the problem for now. --erachima talk 23:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commentnot a bad idea. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise All this article needs is some work in accordance with our editing policy. I have knocked the article back to a stub, citating substantial works on the topic which testify to its notability and providing a link to the similar subject of Islamic economics. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the colonel's version is fine. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The stub is notable, referenced and well-defined. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:46, 19 July 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) 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Render unto … erm … Colonel Warden that which is … erm … recorded by MediaWiki as Colonel Warden's edit.
A quick search turns up plenty of sources that confirm that the original statements in the original article were 100% wrong. This subject isn't new at all. One book on the subject that I found, not cited here, starts with Luke 16:1-8, the Parable of the Unjust Steward. Several others mention Proverbs 22:7 and Proverbs 28:8. Then there's Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, which has whole articles giving Biblical views on money management subjects from "Debt, Interest, Loans" (pp. 332 et seq.) to "Wealth" (pp. 1371 et seq.). It seems that people have long since spotted that the Christian Bible contains advice in this area, and covered the subject at length. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colonel Warden has done an excellent job of cleaning it up and we now have a good stub. Mauler90 _talk 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden's cleanup. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work by Colonel W on making something upon which to build the article. The links can be used by anyone who wants to build an article about basic principles. As with something like onboarding, one can give examples of what various books cite. Generally, a reference is made to a Bible verse (a lot of times from the Book of Proverbs) and then it's tied to some instruction on borrowing, investing, etc. Mandsford 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. The article in its current state is a dictionary definition. I'm not at all sure that this can be expanded without filling the article full of original research. There is not really a field of moral theology specifically called "Biblical money management", only a number of people who are offering advice on personal finance dressed up with Biblical references. An article on Christianity and economics or Christian economic thought might be sustainable, but I think this probably isn't going anywhere. I'm afraid that I have to stay with delete, at least weakly. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note also that we have an article on stewardship (theology), where much if not all of the material that could fit under this title might belong. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. The idea that Man is Steward of the Earth is not to do with money management. I suggest reading the entry on "Debt, Interest, Loans" that I pointed to before to get an idea of what this topic deals in. (And when you've done so, read the articles for "Debt", "Banking", and "Money" in Bromiley's International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.) There very much is a parallel to Islamic economics (not least because the strictures have common origins) as Colonel Warden states, but the subject is also a separate one (not least because of the Calvinist reinterpretations in Christian thinking about the Old Testament, but also because of the great extent to which the New Testament relates and compares economics and sin).
    And if you think that there's not a field of study here, I suggest that you take it up with Richard Lee Greaves, erstwhile professor of History at Florida State University and president of the American Society of Church History, whose book Society and religion in Elizabethan England devotes the whole of chapter 14 to Christian reformist thinking on the subjects of usury, loans, the taking of interest, becoming a guarantor, and ethical principles for conducting business. And that would be just one section of a Christian parallel to Islamic economics, exactly as started here. Uncle G (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no article. There is just a one-sentence dictionary definition with links to a couple of obscure books. And, no, this vote was not purchased with 30 pieces of silver.Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we have here is a textbook WP:DICDEF. If kept, it could use a different title. Courcelles (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A textbook dictionary entry would have a focus upon the particular word or words used - their parts of speech, spelling, etymology and the like. A further test would be to consider whether we could develop the same topic under a different heading, using different words and it seems that we could - calling the article Christian finance, Scriptural guidance about money or the like. So, the current version is just short being a stub. The policy which you cite - WP:DICDEF - goes to some trouble to explain that being short does not make a stub into a dictionary entry. It is therefore not applicable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:13, 28 July 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. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Christie (neuroscientist)

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

Written by User:Brianchristie, this article is on non-notable Canadian associate professor. He has an h-index of about 27, and is an author on papers with high citation counts, but almost always not as the first author. Taking only those papers on which he is first author, his h-index is about 14. The claim to notability stated in the article is that his "research shows that exercise not only promotes adult neurogenesis in the hippocampus, but also enhances synaptic plasticity in the neurocampus." It is my contention that he was a junior contributor to these results, and by no means is that enough for a Wikipedia article. Prodded by User:Scott MacDonald, deprodded by User:DGG. Abductive (reasoning) 23:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the deprodding by DGG. An h-index of 14 or 27 is enough for me; 9 or 10 is my usual cut-off. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top GS cites 1118,889,337 etc. Clear pass of WP:Prof on cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Not first author. Abductive (reasoning) 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most important author (in the sense of notability) in this discipline is the *last* name not the *first*...

Well, he's not last author on most of those either. He's very much a tag-along. This field has very high cite numbers. For example Henriette van Praag, the lead author on the 1118 cite paper, has an h of about 22. Fred H. Gage, the last author, has an h-index of about 130. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 17 July 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) 00:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Xxanthippe. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF. Mauler90 _talk 04:09, 21 July 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) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Age

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

Non-notable (at least in a reliable source way) neologism.-- Syrthiss (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A quick Google search shows that it's used mostly in conjunction with pushing a document called the "Attention Age Doctrine", which will supposedly help you build your online business and make lots of money. Yeah, I'm sure we've seen that promise before. Mirithing (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A good one for Urban Dictionary. See if it sticks and come back in 10 years... Carrite (talk) 20:10, 21 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EPL Talk

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination from malformed AfD. Atmoz (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted before in the past, but has been rewritten. Just looks like an advertisement for a website. Bobbymozza (talk) 15:40, 24 July 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, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it is still not notable and fails wp:web.

Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 01:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4. – Pee Jay 07:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all deliberate speed. No article. I note that someone has removed the entry from the list of AfD's. I restored it but I don't know how long it was out. This is not malformation but vandalism. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 05:20, 29 July 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 Nomination withdrawn. This discussion was improperly closed (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes in Sri Lanka

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is documenting allegations that have so far found no significiant coverage -- all coverage so far has been passing. Human Rights Watch and International Crisis Group issue dozens of reports each year on obscure topics that never extend much beyond that (including the veracity of Henry Lee Lucas' confessions for example). The People's Tribunal has had hearings on US intervention in Brazilian Amazon, etc. as well suggesting the insignificant nature of its hearings. It's also an interest group and thus cannot be considered significant. The UN Security Court has rejected these allegations and has not referred this case to their court. Other Human Rights Courts have refused to rule in any way in regards to these allegations also.

This is a topic that is significant to only a minority extremist group. Also there are two articles already to deal with these issues -- Human Rights in Sri Lanka and Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. I'm not sure how many articles we need on these events especially when it is all but forgotten outside of certain interest groups. BlueLotusLK (talk) 08:44, 21 July 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.