Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RenamedUser jaskldjslak903 (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 4 January 2011 (add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 3 January 5 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock 'n' Roll Ralphs

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

I changed it from prod to AFD after finding some local news sources on the subject, but discounting passing mentions and such I could only, there's very little in reliable sourcing that talks directly about the subject. Delete Secret account 22:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Allen

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

Nomination withdrawn Sources are not always apparent and I saw little evidence this was notable but this has now been proved to meet requirements.

Non notable BLP. No hits in google books. Few other if any at all from his website that I can find.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles also need to pass Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability and have multiple reliable publications discussing this individual aside from papers they may have published. It is still an unsourced BLP.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources to the article. It was not difficult. Did you even try? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do a google book search generally which didn't reveal a single source. Maybe I should try google scholar for academics in future.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, barely any credible fruckin hits actually about James F. Allen. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's difficult with that search to find sources about Allen, because they're obscured by all the publications that are by him rather than about him. In cases like this it works better to include in the query some of the other specifics from the article that one is trying to source (and also of course to look for scholar, web, and news sources rather than assuming that everything can be found in books). But the nominator's "no hits in Google books" opening statement remains mystifying, because the problem here isn't no hits, it's too many hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 6:50, 11 January 2011 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Paragon (guild)" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon (guild) (2nd nomination)) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon (guild)

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

Recreation of a recently deleted page, less than 24 hours after its previous AfD was resolved. Denied CSD G4 due to the fact that there are indeed more sources present. None Few of the included sources can be verified in English. Article cannot demonstrate how the guild is notable. Clear violation of WP:PROMOTION, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for your guild. Article author has some WP:OWNERSHIP issues, perhaps some WP:COI as well. RoninBK T C 22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Corrected a point above, some of the links are indeed in English. -- RoninBK T C 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4: it may have additional sources, but I fail to believe it's any more notable than it was yesterday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really confused. Why people say only 1 source is enough, if it's not true? Now it has 13 sources (6 english + 7 finnish), so may I please know why people are against this article or against the sources? --Pek (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoever told you that one source is enough, is clearly mistaken. The WP:GNG clearly states that multiple non-trivial mentions are required. Secondly, as Scoops has pointed out below, many of the links provided do not qualify as "non-trivial." Thirdly, and probably most important, is that you haven't proven why this needs to be included in an encyclopedia. Pek, you are clearly too involved with the subject to see the obvious consensus. -- RoninBK T C 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Non-trivial? Could you explain that word in some "more simple" words? Sorry if I don't understand everything it's just that my home language isn't English. Also, I have never heard that anyone would explain in Finnish Wikipedia that "Why should this article be here?", if the article has the notable sources the subject doesn't matter, does English Wikipedia have totally different rules or whats up with that? --Pek (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not delve too much into other versions of Wikipedia, but I can tell you that the English version does not constitute listing rosters for World of Warcraft guilds and saying that they're important to Finnish culture. Furthermore, the fact that you disregarded our consensus and recreated the page on a whim does not impress for this page to be in existence. DarthBotto talk•cont 01:57, 05 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't make the second vote because it would increase articles chances for staying, I did it because we had conversation going on with user Hobit, who didn't answer important question before article was deleted. --Pek (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I read the article right now, there are 12 sources. Two of them are serious news agencies. One did a 2 minute clip on the group. I don't think that's very significant coverage. The other has a six minute audio piece. I have trouble calling that significant, too. A third source looks like a tech blog (translations are a bit rough), which I have trouble taking seriously, with it's current front-page story about boobs in Final Fantasy. Between those three, I have trouble calling it "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources". The other 9 sources are press releases/even-less-reliable-blogs. I'd also note that all the coverage seems to be focused on one event: beating the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. It makes me wonder if it might not be better to include a brief mention of them in that article. » scoops “5x5„ 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only 1 blog, which is not even for sure is it blog or some sort of "blog-interview" and your talking about many blogs? --Pek (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Finnish i do little summary about those three. YleX is one of Yle's (Finnish national broadcasting company) nationwide radio channels. Btw i guess there was probably longer interview in radio than in web. Easily can be counted as point for notability. Nelonen is one of four Finland's main tv-channels and mentioning their prime time news is kind of relevant also. Edome is also one of finlands big gaming news sites and it can be counted as credit also (in finnish point of view). Wowmagazine (dead tree magazine) and Esport (web magazine) are smaller and can be used as information sources but those aren't so good for reviewing the notability. ----Zache (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I still can't read the sources, but if there is coverage from two serious news agencies and the coverage consists of a 2-minute video clip and a 6 minute audio clip, I'd say we've got multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. If the 3rd identified good source is actually reliable we're in solid shape. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And given the non-promotional language and general stubby nature of the article, I really don't see a promotion problem here. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can read a lot of the sources. I'd say the English sources pretty much get us there. We have a number of RSes (though not all indpendent) saying that this is the best at what they do in the world. The sources meet WP:N and the group is clearly notable in the English sense of the word. I mean companies are paying to bring them to the US so people can meet and watch them. That's pretty impressive really. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already settled this- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon (guild). If anything should be done beyond deleting this page again, it should be addressing the creator about disregarding the consensus and reasoning behind the original page's deletion. DarthBotto talk•cont 02:00, 05 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was deleted for not meeting notability requirements and there was a request in said discussion for the article to be sourced. It is now created anew as a sourced article and should be looked at again. I've no problem with this being deleted again (though I think it shouldn't be, I don't need to be right), but to accuse the creator of bad faith isn't appropriate. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability isn't the only reason that the article was being considered for deletion. There's also the question of whether this meets the question of What Wikipedia is not. Throwing sheer numbers of dubious sources at the article does not answer the question of whether it is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Unfortunately the closing admin didn't add a closing summary, so we can't say for sure what the ultimate reason was. -- RoninBK T C 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think that if the gaming community comes from game like World of Warcraft it is more notable if it would come from some very unknown and unpopular game. Anyway as stated earlier Paragon is very well known around World of Warcraft, and the fact that the work is done by 35 player out of 12 million should ring a bell in everyones mind. --Pek (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Raiding guilds, while apparently a mentionable part of the game, are not notable for me. The fact that these raiding guilds have been ranked is notable maybe, and if there happened to be such a thing as official rading guild rankings or something like that, the fact could be mentioned in the main WoW article. Individual winners, however, don't count as notable for me, no matter how much the Finnish media likes to mention anything and everything Finnish that has gained even a little fame. Pitke (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no matter how much the Finnish media likes to mention anything and everything Finnish that has gained even a little fame.", you probably don't realize how hard it is to actually be a number #1 World of Warcraft guild in the world. I wouldn't say that being number #1 guild (35 players from 12 million) is a little fame. --Pek (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that world rank #1 is more valuable then state rank #1 and the plumber will never have a sources, these guys do have them. --Pek (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add that being plumber is not same thing as being extremely competitive World of Warcraft player. --Pek (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more addition that not all of the 8 million population are plumbers, but we are talking here about 12 million actual players in-game, so that is very bad example of yours. --Pek (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure if you're following his comparison. Regardless, attempting to find international information on this subject is extremely limited, apart from their official website. Electronic sports teams that constitute several divisions of well-renowned and public, (not anonymous), players have few pages as it is, due to the fact that multiple sources, magazines, news broadcasts, multi-million dollar websites, etc. cover their existence and are easy to find. Besides Blizzard giving out achievements for successful World of Warcraft players, supportive evidence of this subject's notoriety is in high question. Look, if you had re-created this page after it was deleted and made it seem legitimate and neatly done, your peers would certainly be more lenient in their judgment. However, this page is a few short questions that state that it is popular because of World of Warcraft, nothing more. You have had time to look for sources, but you rather have been disregarding the common consensus of everyone else. There's not much more to be said, considering this page was already deleted. DarthBotto talk•cont 05:10, 07 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pek said, being plumber is not same thing as being extremely competitive World of Warcraft player. He is correct. In a typical 40-hour-a-week year, a plumber would spend 2000 hours on his craft. To be among the top plumbers in the city, nation or world, one imagines he'd need 10-15 years of experience. In some places, plumbers are required to pass examinations to prove their knowledge in order to be certified, so there may well be more than the 20-30 thousand hours required. Additionally, plumbers are actually paid for plumbing - some in the US charge almost what (inexpensive) lawyers charge. So, Pek is correct. Being an extremely competitive WoW player is not the same as being a plumber. Being a plumber is harder, more profitable and more useful. I mean, has anyone ever had to call a WoW player to stop their home from being destroyed? --Habap (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say keep it if it weren't for the fact he made it -so- quickly after the last deletion. Although there are more sources I still do not believe that the guild is notable enough in English terms. Perhaps on the Finnish Wikipedia but right now it has no notability to be on the English one. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 13:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the comment on top of this page: "I didn't make the second vote because it would increase articles chances for staying, I did it because we had conversation going on with user Hobit, who didn't answer important question before article was deleted.". --Pek (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion I'm afraid we're having something lost in translation, I don't quite understand fully what you mean by 'second vote'. And even if Hobit did not answer your question and even if you had waited to create the article to find more sources. I still do not believe it fits properly in what a article should be. The guild is clearly notable but to have it's own page for it seems a bit far in anybodies mind. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on current English article sources -- OnRPG is currently under consideration as a reliable source, but general consensus is thus far is that it's unreliable. The Republic of Gamers link is a site run by the company Asus, and so may be seen as a WP:SPS to promote their hardware as their about us page (and pretty much every article on the site) seems to imply Joystiq is a situational source and thus reliability of the author should be demonstrated. Normally I wouldn't question this, but Matt Low seems to have some of experience. I wouldn't necessarily call him reliable, but I don't know that I'd say he's unreliable either - so it could go either way depending on the thoughts of those who know about establishing author reliability. The assembly.org link is extremely short, and so could only be used after notability has been established. I have no further opinion on the matter - I'm just commenting on the sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete (vote changed from above) - Thank you, Teancum. It appears you are correct that consensus is against OnRPG as a reliable source. This being the case, there is no evidence of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and as such the article must be deemed non-notable and deleted. Vote changed accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers–Pistons rivalry

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

Meeting several times in the NBA finals doesn't indicate a rivalry, no sources to identify that this is a notable rivalry Delete Secret account 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Pletten

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

The subject was the Vice Presidential candidate for the Prohibition Party's 2004 & 2008 US election campaigns! Before you go thinking that this provides some inherent level of notability, be aware that the combined number of votes for Pletten's tickets was under 2600, about 0.001% of the roughly 253 million votes cast in the two elections. More importantly, Pletten does not seem to be the subject of independent coverage from reliable sources[4][5] and, thus, doesn't meet WP:BIO. This WP:BLP, unsourced since June 2008, should be deleted or perhaps redirected to Prohibition Party. — Scientizzle 21:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REMLOX

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

Non-notable piece of software. E. Fokker (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article, I feel compelled to respond. The argument that this article references a "non-notable piece of software" viloates the guidlines established by Wikipedia for deletion, as no evidence is given to prove that it is non-notable. Just because Ms. Fokker has not heard of the software, does not make it not-notable. As the sources in the article demonstrate, the software has gained recognition within the industry. While some of the data referenced in the article comes directly from the company's website, the references to news coverage and literary material comes from sites independent of the developer. Much of the lack of coverage in "mainstream" news is due to the reletive youth of the technology utilized in this software. While Ms. Fokker has much experience as a Wikipedian, her opinion that the software is non-notable should not be considered the consensus view.

Additionally, item 10 under "Before nominating an article for deletion" on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion page states:

"10.If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."

While Ms. Fokker may believe that this article appears to sound like a press release, I would argue that any encyclopedic article on a product could be interpreted as seemign like a press release. Sufficient opportunity to develop this article has not been provided, as it was made AfD within minutes of being posted. Dustin.sachs (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, apparent conflict of interest judging from a Google search of the creator's username. The burden of proof is for notabilty, (through substantial coverage in reliable sources), there is no need to prove that it's not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NN per Hairhorn. Looking over the sources as of right now (last edit) 3 seem to be company sponsored. Ref 4 sounds good until you look at the about page for the site and you see this "EPR Network (EPR stands for express press release) is one of the nation’s largest press release distribution networks on Web." Also, the PA Bar cite (ref 5) looks fairly trivial. I think this is a snowball close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerillero (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2011
  • Delete Firstly, there is a severe lack of reliable independent sources (I have checked and confirmed Guerillero's account of the references). Secondly, the article is written entirely in promotional terms. Non-notable and spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page was modeled after other pages that have had success within Wikipedia (see Encase or Microsoft). Nobody here has been able to demonstrate how the article about this software is any more promotional than the sites I have listed. Both pieces of software were new at some point in time, and the lack of media coverage should not be considered in removal from this site. There are many things in the encyclopedia that lacked widestream coverage, but are included because they existed and were cutting edge or revolutionary. It would seem to me that in article about aspects of specialized industries, someone familiar with the industry should judge the notability of the article prior to removal from Wikipedia. How many people on Wikipedia know te intricate details of what a Coronary artery bypass surgery producedure is? Yet, this has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia with simply a request for citations for verification. It is my contention that deletion of this article is premature as other alternatives have not been been given sufficient time to be exhausted.38.110.205.163 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are specific notability criteria that this page does not meet (and in its current version it may qualify for speedy deletion as spam). If you think there are sources out there, please add them to the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering to Witches

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

Non notable book by non notable author. No awards, no references, no statistics - no nothing. Myosotis Scorpioides 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - The BBC has covered it here. Google News also shows some reviews behind pay walls. The bulk of the article looks like a copy-paste of a book review especially with the recommendation at the end. That will need some serious copyediting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added several references. The book has been reviewed by the BBC, reprinted multiple times, and distributed in at least 12 countries [6]. You were right, Whpq, the bulk of the article was a cut-and-paste from the book's front flap; I deleted it. It's now a stub - but a referenced, notable stub. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dilu

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

Notability is unproven. Is a horse in a semi-fictional historical epic really deserving of its own article? Verifiability is dubious. I do not see relevant hits in Google Scholar for "Hex Mark". Clearly a non-RS Wiki about a computer game is no use as a reference yet this is where the article has been cut and pasted pretty much verbatim. I did try to redirect this a couple of times but the author clearly objects and now I am not even sure the title is right. Is the horse called "Dilu", "Dílú mǎ" or "Hex Mark"? Hex Mark is used throughout the article. If the article name is wrong we don't even need a redirect. I now think we should just delete this mess. DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trekkie. other articles mentioned at editorial discretion Spartaz Humbug! 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet International

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

In ~two years since previous AfD, no appreciable expansion to include substantiation of notability through citations to significant coverage in third-party sources. Web search (and perusal of suggests books at previous AfD) don't bring up any such significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The content replacement was not an improvement over the previous state insofar as Wikipedia content and sourcing guidelines are concerned. Thinking about an article as a "narrative" is in itself oddball, and Admhawk's responsibilities within the club make his contributions iffy under WP:COI (but perhaps explain why the article so firmly reads like an ad). --EEMIV (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 21:58, 16 January 2011 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs | block) deleted "The Imp (television series)" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Imp (television series)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, I can't find anything that shows that so-called “series of one minute long shorts” is notable. Xajaso (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camden County College Lindback Award Recipients

Camden County College Lindback Award Recipients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of recipients for a non-notable award. SnottyWong speak 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanbo

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

Prod and prod2 "declined" by an admin placing a hangon. I'm stunned.

In any event, there are little to no sources to be found anywhere. Someone added a book source, but a thorough search of Google Books and plain Google for "tanbo -weapon" turns up almost nothing beyond the single source already in the article — in fact, the hits are so few that Google autocorrects to "tambo". The declining admin said that he found sources, but this (no author credits), this (an open wiki) and this (a site that allows playing Tanbo online) are in no way reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no sources to be found anywhere" and "the single source already in the article" would appear to be contradictory phrases. The search arguments that I used were Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, finding the couple of book pages referenced in the article and a passing mention in another book. I haven't examined the general web search results in detail because I have no idea whether any of the sites found are reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified argument. Also, among the first pages of your Google search, I still find nothing resembling a reliable source. A couple pages in one book and a one-sentence mention in another certainly do not constitute non-trivial third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first book hit is merely game instruction (the whole book is just rules of various games). There's no meaningful coverage of the topic. The second book hit is even less. Google search returns the site of the creator, forums, wikis, and a site whose domain registration has expired. None of the sites are reliable, nor do they have anything more than "It's a game created by Mark Steere, and this is how you play it." Absent reliable sources that demonstrate notability, it must go. » scoops “5x5„ 21:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SWR Mo'bass

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

Promotional article for a non-notable product, complete with suggested retail price. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong soliloquize 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Techready

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

Non-notable; topic has a very limited audience (Microsoft Employees). Safety Cap (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senkyōshigo

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

Has been tagged as Not notable and needing references that appear in reliable third-party publications since June 2009. Every Mormon missionaries who has to learn a foreign language end up mixing his own language and that language for a while. That doesn’t make it a new language or notable. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-How would you do this? I'm all for the idea, but I'm not sure how to go about it. I can't see how to include the info into the new article. Once I get a clear idea, I would be willing to change the delete tag to a merge tag.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are only two sentences plus an example on the current page, this could either become a subsection or simply cited as one example. However if, as 208.81.184.4 implies below, this is more like a pidgin than typical learner interlanguage, my merger target might not be entirely appropriate. I'll have to think more about it. Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One big difference between other "missionary languages" & Senkyōshigo is that Senkyōshigo has been described in detail in a linguistics academic journal. Senkyōshigo isn't something that "happens for a while" on LDS missions to Japan; it's a self-consistent lingua franca that has existed for decades, and has defied changes in the numbers & organization structures of the LDS missions in Japan, as well as various attempts to discourage its use &/or kill it by mission presidents & other priesthood authorities. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have additional third-party sources that document its history and extent of use? There is one source cited now, but those are big claims to make on the basis of a single article plus primary sources. Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Contrary to my previous comment, I have found no sources calling the variety an example of interlanguage. Smout (1988) suggests that it resembles a pidgin, but argues that it is not a pidgin as such. On the other hand, the only sources I have found discussing the variety are Smout and three discussions of problem case for defining varieties that cite Smout's lone paper on Senkyoshigo (Gorlach 1996, Grant 2001, and Golokov 2003). Cnilep (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure many foreigners in Japan have mixed Japanese words into English speech, but that doesn't make it a "pidgin" or notable enough to be documented here. --DAJF (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

115 AH

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

This article contains essentially no useful information, and is one of a series of such that (for the most part) appear to have been generated for no useful purpose other than to provide a calendar year conversion and a set of section headers. it has been in existance since 2006 but has had no useful additions. I attempted to PROD it, but the PROD was removed by an anonymous editor with the statement, "rm PROD - this might better go through AfD instead". In checking similar articles for PRODs, I find those were de-PROD'd with the suggestion to take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, which I did here.

This may fall into speedy delete under criteria A1 A3, but I'm following the de-PROD recommendation for this page to gather a broader consensus before attempting a speedy delete of the others. RJH (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Most wanted articles#Calendars.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Objections made at the time of the nomination noted a dearth of sourcing, and User:Roscelese worked on fixing that problem. There has been only one !delete since then, with an opinion that the additions were not "significant independent sourcing", although even that suggested an alternative course as a merge. Mandsford 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family Fellowship

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

Fails notability, has only original research, and uses only a single primary source.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Biker Biker need to WP:Assume good faith and not assume all LDS members are the same. If you ask any commenter at Talk:Undergarment#Time_to_review_Temple_Garment_image I am active in trying to maintain WP:NOTCENSORED when It comes to LDS article. I nominated this article for one reason, and I still feel it fails Notability as stated. To keep an article only because a LDS member nominated it for deletion Bad faith. I stand my by nomination, Fails notability, has only original research, and uses only a single primary source. Addationally It also fails WP:PROMOTION since this club is so un-Notable the best anyone can come up with is one line and a link to the website of the group.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment noted, but we'll have to agree to disagree and I stand by my comments. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added more third-party references to the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't check out the sources, but unless the article is a total hoax the group seems to have attracted enough attention to be notable. Far more than most Internet community groups of the kind. Jaque Hammer (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move this is limp as an independent article, but worth keeping and moving to [[Religious motorcycle clubs]]. As an independent article, it deserves deletion, but compiled it doesn't. tedder (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Busch Memorial Stadium#History. In that the other two outcomes (Yankee Stadium, Tiger Stadium) referred to "Final game at...", this will be renamed "Final game at old Busch Stadium" for redirect purposes. Mandsford 04:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last game at old Busch Stadium

Last game at old Busch Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final game at Yankee Stadium and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Detroit Tigers game at Tiger Stadium, there is consensus not to have stand alone articles for the final game at a stadium. In this case, I'd say there is no content for a merge and that there is no need for a special section merged onto Busch Stadium. Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 19:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green ink

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

WP is not a dictionary. This is a very minor jargon expression. Jaque Hammer (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 19:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. we don't seem to have picked up any sources at all for this so policy is clear Spartaz Humbug! 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeboat Foundation

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

The concern is Notability when evaluating against the standards at WP:notability (organizations). The organization has a decent website, over a 1000 contributors in committees, including 2 Nobel Prize winners, and a blog has appeared on it which is on the New York times website. Furthermore, there is substantial info on its founder (Eric Klien). However, about the organization itself, no reliable sources seem to be available from a google search. For notability of Non-commercial organizations which are international in scope, still it is required that "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources", which do not exist. L.tak (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider this quote, 20th July 2010:

"Plenty of people agree with Mr. Klien [chairman of the Lifeboat Foundation] or at least consider efforts to tame technology and confront catastrophes worth exploring. Google gave $450, and Hewlett-Packard is on the donor list too, handing over $1,081. Sun Microsystems gave $1,000. Professors, technology executives and people tied to various industries are also among the contributors."

86.184.247.59 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]
Let me give a point by point reaction to the sources you gave. I was aware of them all, but thought they would not count as wp:reliable sources. As:
  • The New York Times "article" is actually a blog (posted on blogs.nytimes.com) and thus show the individual opinion of an (not well-known writer). Blogs are generally excluded as reliable sources, even if they are blogging websites linked to a very notable newspaper
  • The article on Kurzweiliai is a copy of the website-text of the lifeboat foundation itself and therefore merely constitutes copy-pasting of a press release. (which is explicitly excluded under WP:notability (organizations).
  • As for the wired article, that is under blogs, (and then Dangerroom), so a blog again of a non-well-known person. (furthermore, it seems that it is placed under the tag bizarro; which makes it also a bit questionable looking at the entries of that tag.
  • Furthermore you quote the lifeboat foundation stating that many people give money. Although that might be a good and true thing. The missing problem here is nobability established by external sources. The foundation itself surely is not such an external source, so we can not judge if this is a notable thing (and besides, the large multinational Sun giving only 1000 dollar?). And the 2 nobel prize winners: if they were to give interviews in which the Lifeboat foundation is the main subject, such things might constitute reliable sources, not the foundation stating it has 2 winners in its listings. L.tak (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
are you refering to the literal copy of the press release on Kurzweil's site ([this one?)? and the blog on New York Times "NYT"? Or did you find other sources? L.tak (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Griffith

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

While Ms Griffith appears to write often on the topic of digital embroidery, there does not seem to be any source material written about her, which would be required to meet the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terence "Tramp Baby" Abney

Terence "Tramp Baby" Abney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP about a record producer. He appears to have worked with some notable artists, but no significant coverage found. Another editor thought discussion at AFD was in order so bringing it here. Michig (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Varykino

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

This unsourced article about a fictional country estate makes no claim of notability. Hairyns (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Model (person). One of the things which has begun to annoy me at AfD is the poor quality of commentary. This is strongly illustrated by this AfD; of the 12 commenting users, not a single one has cited policy that I can see (although I commend the nominator on the quality of his initial post). Given the almost complete lack of reliable sources, which nobody, it seems, has tried to remedy, the most appropriate action is to merge. If it is a notable cultural phenomenon it should be included, but nobody here has demonstrated that it is an independently notable cultural phenomenon. Given that most of the useful content has already been merged by User:Roninbk (props for that) there's no problem from my end with someone WP:BOLDly redirecting it. I would ask all users to remember that AfD is not a vote - the strongest weight goes to the user with the strongest argument, and WP:GHITS does not constitute either. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gravure idol

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

The article consists of original research as it doesn't have reliable sources and, therefore, doesn't meet the criteria for verifiability or neutral point of view. Doing some search engine tests, I found no reliable sources about this topic in English with Google or using "Gravure" with Google Scholar, or Google News. All Google results point to websites that are not reliable or that are questionable sources. Considering this and that if fails in three of the main content policies, I also don't think that this article has notability to be included in Wikipedia and I believe that the article falls into what Wikipedia is not. Checking the Japanese counterpart, I also noticed that the Japanese article is full of original research and also doesn't provide reliable sources. The English article is essentially covering the same topic that the article Pin-up girl does. In my opinion, Gravure idol fulfills the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Gravure idols are a specifically Japanese phenomenon, quite different from pin-up girls. It is hard to find reliable sources because of the huge number of popular photo sites. On the other hand, the fact that there are over 1.6 million Google hits seems to me evidence that they are notable enough. In addition, Wikipedia itself lists over 30 gravure idols, all identified as such. I have added a reference to the recently established Gravure Idol award. There is no reason to merge this with Pin-up girl --- people looking for information about one are unlikely to want the other, and it is wrong to describe a Gravure idol as a pin-up girl. I agree completely that his article would be better with more citations, but to the best of my knowledge the facts are broadly correct and it is clearly notable, so there are no grounds for deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citation added, www.oneinchpunch.net, describes itself as a personal website: not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The award exists, which is the point, and a search turned up a better reference. Francis Bond (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable topic in the Japanese media area - Gravure Idols are definitely not the same as pinup girls and the information in the Pin-up girl article doesn't apply to Gravure Idols in Japan. Merging them would be forcing a Western point of view onto a non-Western phenomenon. The article needs to be improved, not merged or deleted. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick google search for 'pin-up girl' gives me the follwing hits with buzzwords: Retro, vintage, Retro Dresses, Pin Up Girl (1944), Retro Model, Classic ... Don't merge a cultural phenomenon from modern 21. Century Japan with something that is perceived in the Western World with these words.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a good-sized article on the Japanese wiki about the term, so it does appear to be a notable item. Probably what needs to be done is someone translates and adds from the JA one. Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The size of an article does not determine whether an article is good or not. As I pointed out, the Japanese article, like the English counterpart, is full of original research and it doesn't have reliable sources. It has been tagged by the Japanese editors as containing original research since 2007, so it is not a trustworthy source to make a translation. Jfgslo (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has survived in the Japanese Wikipedia, even though someone tagged it as OR, precisely because it is notable. The Japanese page lists over 20 magazines that carry Gravure Idols (including extremely well read publications like Friday and Shonen Jump) and around 10 competitions involving them. I would say that that is enough evidence for general notability. Francis Bond (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is still there doesn't imply that it's a good article or that it should be kept. On the contrary, it just means that it is non-relevant article that is mostly ignored. And that still doesn't mean that the original research information is in any way usable by the English Wikipedia. The English article must fulfill the criteria of the English Wikipedia, which requires verifiability and notability, regardless of its status in other language versions of Wikipedia. As it is, almost nothing in the Japanese article is usable because it's original research. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely existing or being popular does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. That there are Japanese magazines that carry contests with models and call them Gravure Idol, does not imply that Gravure Idol is a topic that has received coverage by itself, it only means that there are contests with models that are called Gravure Idols instead of models, not that there it is topic that has received significant coverage. So far, there is no evidence that Gravure Idol has "Significant coverage" (sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.) Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fundamental function of a model is to sell clothes or another item the model is wearing or using. By contrast, a gravure idol is essentially selling themselves by way of their own image, and hope people buy their DVDs and so on. In other words, a model sells a brand while a gravure idol essentially IS a brand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, according to whom? All that is original research. And a model (person) is not limited to that definition. In fact, Wikipedia's article about "model" includes "Gravure Idol". There is nothing in the "Gravure Idol" article that justifies its stand-alone existence since almost nothing is referenced and does not meet general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfection may not be required but notability and verifiability are. And I believe that there are no reliable sources regarding this subject and that it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, not even in Japan. Instead, it's purely original research and Wikipedia does not publish original thought, so it must be deleted from Wikipedia or merged with another article because the topic does not have notability to have its standalone article. The article has been around since 2006 and it has always been original research, so I don't think there is a need to keep it any longer. Jfgslo (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or perhaps move back) to Model (person)#Gravure idols The sources that I can find, [12] [13] [14](which admittedly appear very blog-like and unreliable as sources,) tend to indicate that the closest western analogue would be a bikini model, not a pin up girl. As it turns out there already is a section header on Model (person) for Gravure idols. Perhaps we should graft this article back into the Model article, until there is sufficient reliable sourcing to support a standalone article. -- RoninBK T C 06:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and BOLDly copied the substance of the article over to the Model (person) page. I have no problem if you want to include the information into Japanese idol as well, (it just seemed easier to me to copy it over to the Model article because there was already a spot set aside for it.) -- RoninBK T C 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to be bold, but I think there is no consensus to merge or delete, so please be careful not to duplicate too much information. Francis Bond (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 think we need actual sources but this can come back as soon as someone finds some. Spartaz Humbug! 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Paul Knapman

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

Non-notable person. As the coroner in London, Knapman's name appears in many news articles, but the coverage is not about Knapman, but rather about the cases in which he was involved. The only notable coverage about Knapman himself involves an incident in which the coroner's office (and hence Knapman himself) were questioned about the unauthorized removal and subsequent loss of the hands of the victims of the Marchioness disaster. Since this is a relatively minor blip in the overall coverage of that disaster, WP:BLP1E would come into effect. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying below a note that was placed on the article's talk page by its creator. The user is new to Wikipedia and probably didn't know where to put his comments. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from talk page: Dear All

If anyone can help me with this article it is my first time. It would appear I am not correctly following the guidelines, as the editors are saying that Dr Paul Knapman is not notable.

Dr Knapman is an expert, published author,that is another notable fact. The articles relating to inquests are highly significant, as Dr. Knapman is presiding over them and is responsible for the process that decides on the cause of death - in his case, over 85,000 deaths have been overseen and ruled upon. As a Coroner, Dr. Knapman also makes significant recommendations, such as the ones made to the Home secretary, Theresa May regarding the shooting of the barrister, Mark Saundrs by members of the Metroploitan Police - BBC News. As a Deputy Lord Lieutenent of Greater London he fulfills duties relating to the monarchy and is entitled to display the letters DL after his name. wiki ino on [Lord Lieutenants] here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Lieutenant

He also has an entry in Debrett's, which has been a noted source of recognising 'people of significance' for over two centuries. His notable status is very similar to that of judges that preside over signiicant cases (Many judges are featured on Wikipedia)

Any help getting this prominant individual on wikipedia would be most appreciated.

WebManAtTheNetShop (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)WebManAtTheNetShopWebManAtTheNetShop (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Probable delete but I'm torn on this one. As noted by Nominator, there are a lot of news hits that are simply quoting him about a case; that does not amount to "significant coverage". Then there are his publications at Google Scholar, probably not enough or heavily enough cited to qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC. On the other hand (and Nominator noted this too), he himself has been the subject of some news coverage of a negative type, for example a BBC article about a case where he was criticized for unnecessarily removing the hands of victims of a disaster, and criticism in the House of Commons for that and other actions including a suggestion that he be fired. These are significant issues, but I feel that the BBC report may be a case of WP:ONEEVENT and the Parliamentary commentary is not a WP:Reliable Source in the usual sense. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Indonesian vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Jahiliyah

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

This is in Indonesian, but it translates to just vulgar stuff. Check out the google translation. I think it is better to delete it. TheMike •Wassup doc? 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Woods

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

This WP:BLP has been inadequately sourced since 2004. The subject is a thrice unelected candidate from a minor Canadian political party and the publisher of an apparently non-notable magazine, Global Outlook,[15][16] a status that doesn't seem likely to meet most editors' standards of "inherent notability". There is a general lack of reliable, independent sources discussing the subject.[17][18] You can view the subject's own version of the Wiki biography in this revision, as written by IanBDWoods (talk · contribs), which doesn't really offer much more to work with for WP:BIO. — Scientizzle 17:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The "keep" !votes are quite weak here (WP:WAX). But Qwfp's refs, gone uncontested for 5 days, appear to cut it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stack Exchange

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

Non-notable group of websites; most sources are primary or self-published, including blog posts and press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third World Media

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

Online promotion for a low-budget porn producer company. Damiens.rf 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not "real" recognized prestigious awards. They are small pseudo-recognitions used as a promotion exchange tool. --Damiens.rf 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disgreee, but AVN and XBIZ awards are recognized as prestigious and notable for and by their genre. And as already stated, article tone is emminently adressable through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Amendola

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

Self-promotion for unknown "artist". Damiens.rf 17:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since the nominator does not object I'm going to close this discussion and move the article per Simon Burchell,s suggestion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone still believes the band isn't notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morales Pino Trío

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

A search for references found 2 minor mentions in published WPRS, fails WP:N. See User_talk:Simon_Burchell#Morales_Pino_Tr.C3.ADo for a discusion on searching for different word order in quotes. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify your comment on that user talk page could you please explain why you think that "Trío Morales Pino" is a different subject from "Morales Pino Trío"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article says the name of the band is "Morales Pino Trío" not "Trío Morales Pino", the same as the name of the band Three Dog Night is not Dog Night Three. If you believe the article is miss named, then by all means suggest what you think is best. 11:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that they are about the same subject, with the word order being changed from Spanish to English. The article should be moved to Trío Morales Pino, but the subject appears notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I looked at a few of the websites returned from a search on "Trío Morales Pino" (with quotes) and the band members are identical. Santomasdemente just changed the word order for the English article. It's a Colombian band, named in Spanish: a band name of "Morales Pino Trío" would sound strange in Spanish.Simon Burchell (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to move and rename. Simon as you did the research if you want to make the move and add a supporting reference as part of article improvement durring AfD I think that would be fine. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped in a couple of decent refs but won't move it until this AfD is closed. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Fernandez

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

This WP:BLP has been unsourced since 2004! The subject appears to be mid-level leadership (president of the party's Quebec wing) within a minor Canadian political party and who appears to have never won an election, a status that doesn't seem likely to meet most editors' standards of "inherent notability". There is a general lack of reliable, independent sources discussing the subject.[24] — Scientizzle 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Maebe

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

Despite associations with famous names, this producer and engineer does not appear notable on his own. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides working with famous names, this producer and sound engineer has a regular column in a highly regarded professional magazine, and is a board member of the APRS. Moreover, as an engineer for "famous names" this person has responsibility for putting down the sound of the pieces he records, and thus has a significant, if subtle, influence on the finished work - which is *exactly* why engineers are credited, and many other people working on a given production are not. martijnd (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Being a product reviewer for a magazine (highly regarded or not) is not inherently notable. Notability (for Wikipedia's definition anyway) is not indicated by a person's writings, but by the verifiable impact that person has made on his or her field or society at large. That impact is determined by what others have written about the subject, and no one seems to have written anything significant about Maebe. Further, whatever Maebe's responsibility for the success or failure of his clients, if no independent sources have written about him, then there is no notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Maebe is not simply a product reviewer - this is only (a small) part of his contribution to several magazines. As a column writer, he exercises significant influence over his professional field, as is the same with his position as a board member for one of the leading global professional trade bodies. As per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for creative professionals, Maebe satisfies several of the inclusion criteria: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." - clearly his board membership alone as well as the fact that he writes a regular opinion piece indicate that he (or at the very least, his opinion on matters) are regarded as important by his peers. The same can be said about his product reviews, but that is only a small part of his published work. Next, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This criteria also applies to Maebes' work as an engineeer. Having been credited for contribution to well-known works of the likes of Sting, Roger Waters, and Elliot Randall (of Steely Dan fame) satisfies this criteria, and goes well beyond "association with famous names". Unfortunately, Maebes' field is not widely published or reported upon, so your own criteria of "no one seems to have written anything significant about Maebe" is not strictly relevant in light of the foregoing, and furthermore is not all that relevant in this case - the Notability guidelines make it clear that common sense must prevail, and it is a fact that within his industry, Maebe is certainly regarded as "Notable". You might have an issue that the article requires cleanup, or requires some more 3rd party sources, but this seems to be a case of "never heard of the guy, and who cares about sound engineers, so lets mark for deletion" "not famous enough in my book" is not the same as "not notable". In other words: "Notable" is not the same as "Mainstream"martijnd (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Notability requires verifiable evidence. So far, we have only Martijnd's word that Maebe is a significant contributor to this field. Prove it with citations to reliable sources. The problem is not merely that the article presently has no sources, but that a Google search turns up no sources. If anyone has sources that I can't find, bring them forth. Maebe's role as sound engineer on various notable recordings does not constitute creating or co-creating a significant or well-known work. The creator of a recording is universally agreed to be the principal artist of the recording (Sting, Roger Waters, Elliot Randall, etc). A record producer might be credited as co-creator, if verifiable sources can be found to indicate that the producer's role added significantly to the quality of the product. A sound engineer can improve a recording's quality, but I would doubt that any engineer would be credited as the co-creator of a song or album. When it comes time to hand out Grammy's for "Best Song", "Best Record", etc, it is not the engineer who stands to accept the award. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Your last comment shows how poorly qualified you are to actually be dealing with this subject (this is not a personal attack, merely an observation made on the basis of your erroneous and ignorant assumptions). Recording engineers *frequently* receive Grammy's for their work - look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nichols_(recording_engineer)#Grammy_Awards for a simple example, so yes - in some cases, it *is* the engineer that stands to receive the award. I have made reference to several publications where Maebe is involved in, and have made reference to his board membership, but you keep dancing around these responses and coming up with new ways of interpreting the policies. A Google search will turn up many hits, links and sources that clearly indicate Maebe is notable (yeah yeah, google hits don't count - but you brought that up as a measure, not me), but looking at your personal edit history I am sure you will find some obscure application of WP policy to turn this into a "but that doesn't count" - I particularly enjoyed how you told (trolled?) one of the UK's most respected compilers of Soul music that his opinion doesn't count. Nevertheless, Maebe is - in his field - Notable, well known, and highly respected, and as I previously stated, his article might be lacking in certain areas, and might need a good cleanup (not something I am personally motivated to do - I don't really care about it in that way), flagging it for deletion on notability grounds is ridiculous, given the reputation and influence of the person involved. As for sources, a few off the bat are http://www2.aprs.co.uk/Default.aspx?pageId=248056 (APRS board members), http://voicecouncil.com/, http://www.audioprointernational.com/, etc - Stating that Maebe is not notable as a sound engineer is like stating that Jeremy Clarkson is not notable as a car reviewer, and that he is only notable because he plays a dumbass on TV a lot. martijnd (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC
          • Clearly Martijnd has misread my prior comment. I did not claim that recording engineers do not receive Grammy's and other awards for their work. What I said was that, when a song or album is nominated as "Best Album", "Best Song", "Best Record", etc, it is the artist and perhaps the producer who accept the award, not the engineer. The point being that the artist and the producer are the "creators" of the work. Crediting an engineer as the creator of an album would be akin to crediting the assembly line worker for the design of an automobile. Clearly the worker must do their job correctly to produce a fine finished product, but they are not the creator of that product. If, as Martinjd says, there are sources available (whether Google can find them or not) I invite him (her?) to produce these sources. Saying "there are lots of sources" but failing to produce even one doesn't really help much. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Very amusing - my point clearly stated that an engineer makes a significant contribution to a work, not that he is to be credited as the sole creator. It is in recognition of this contribution that engineers are nominated and awarded Grammy's. ("To be credited", in the creative industry, means "to be formally recognised for participation in creation of the work" not "recognised as being the creator" and takes the form of a formal mention on a sleeve, colophon, or movie title / credit sequence). This is obvious, and requires no further discussion - You really are skirting the definition of trolling, with your selective attention to facts, and pulling things out of context. In any case, I have provided several sources above (several times) and they go ignored by you, probably because you are not interested in these sources at all, you appear to simply enjoy this game - evident from your history of deleting stuff as fast as it pops up on wikipedia. I have provided links to Maebe's contributions in magazines, links to the professional organisation where Maebe is a board member, and there are further, offline sources available (the physical media where Maebe is actually credited). I agree that not every soundengineer is notable. Maebe, however, is; at least, according to WP guidelines.martijnd (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As there appears to be a growing tension between user Martijnd and myself, I will recuse myself from further discussion on this topic and let the reviewing administrators assess the strengths of the various arguments and the validity of the provided sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks coverage in independet reliable sources. I agree that Maebe's role as sound engineer on various notable recordings does not constitute creating or co-creating a significant or well-known work. I see no real evidence that satisfies notability criteria as "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Being a board member or writing stuff does not satsisfy. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coimbatore cultural academy

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

Promotional article for a non-notable business which hosts extracurricular activities for children in India. Created by a SPA with an obvious conflict of interest. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SnottyWong soliloquize 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyvio and nn-bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coen van Oostrom

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

Copyright Violation Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AdvisorOne

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

I can't find significant coverage of this website in reliable, third-party sources. The three references are to press releases, and I can't find anything on the web other than passing mentions. ThemFromSpace 16:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15 Songs For You

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

While the article calls this an "official" album, it is not listed at the official Christina Aguilera website (see here). A search for information finds that the "album" is available at download sites of questionable validity. I can find no third-party coverage of the album except at minor blogs, which is suspicious for an artist of such fame. I suspect that this is a fan-created package that only looks valid because it has spread around the download-o-sphere. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Virus Killer

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

Notability issues: not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia per (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Activity 3

Paranormal Activity 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the information in this article is sourced, and after some intense searching, all the info I can find is that the movie has been greenlit. I suggest mirroring the scant information available to Paranormal Activity 2, as is custom for sequels with little info until much more information comes to light. Angryapathy (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are yaaroo!

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

I can find no evidence at all of notability. No sources are cited, and web searches produce mostly Wikipedia, pages reflecting Wikipedia, blogs, Facebook, etc. In addition the article does seem to have somewhat promotional aspects. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is not a vote. The strength of arguments dictates the weight given to them, and simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE is not sufficient. The concerns of the nominator have neither been addressed nor disproved, and it has not been shown that the subject of this article passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setlist TV

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

Non-notable community-access television program. No significant coverage available to indicate notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This program is of note. The program broadcasts on two major cable networks in a major metropolitan city. It is a music performance program which featurs musical acts of note. Acts who already have wiki pages, etc. This program received thousands of television and web viewers each week. The page is still being edited to include citat--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)ions, references, links, etc.--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note, as you search for sources, that Facebook pages and Youtube videos are generally not considered reliable sources. Evidence of significant coverage from independent sources will be needed. I was unable to find any evidence of such coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are living in a digital age. Hence the existence of Wikipedia. You may not view youtube & facebook as reliable sources but these links represent the artists, creatos, crew, and producers involved with the production of a cable television & web program. The point of the program that this wikipedia page represents is that it operates outside of normal conventions. It brings light to established, respected and accredited artists while operating in a manner that conforms to the DIY lifestyle the show represents. More citations will be added as they become available. The program and thus the page will continue to grow, so if the page is deleted now it can't grow. If you want to delete it go ahead. Or you can let it exist as it is and as things expand so to will the wiki-page. If you feel the need to delete this page for lack of substantial coverage elsewhere you are contributing to the lack of coverage and exposure. I'm done. --Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The program may become notable in the future, or it may not. As of today, it is not, as evidenced by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said maybe it will in the future. You claim youtube isn't a viable source, well go look at the linked youtube page and see the THOUSANDS of views. --Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have read it. I'm not saying that uploading something onto youtube deems it notable. I'm just referencing the fact that there is viewership.--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job guys! try taking a look at the thousands of wikipedia pages with even less citations, less impact, less information, and less reason to have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the existence of other poor articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on the decision to keep or delete this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per WP:RS etc. People may watch this stuff, but we've not got proof of it. (Viewer figures at online sites are notoriously liable to fixing. I am not accusing anyone here of that, but the practice of this across the internet damns everyone's statistics.) Peridon (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP views haven't been fixed. views & comments available. television broadcasts happen. An online user contributed site shouldn't be damning a viable contribution based upon their views of other online user contributed site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say these figures had. I said figures like this can be. They are not reliable by Wikipedia's rules. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, you can campaign to get them changed, comply with them, or go to AboutUs and LinkedIn where the question will not arise. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPits a valid program and has featured some bands I love. I know of dozens of folk who watch it weekly. Just because it isn't your cup of tea Ice-T fans doesn't mean you should delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.101.107 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — 24.168.101.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Equally, 'I like it' isn't a valid reason for keeping. See WP:ILIKEIT (for both ways round.) Peridon (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seriously just keep the page. is it really that big of a deal? i looked at the page. i see citations, links, references, its a credible program, showcases worthwhile well known musical acts, broadcasts in a major city (NYC), and is a well made program. -JT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.101.107 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this "wasn't a vote"?--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. I wrote "!vote", not "vote" (note the exclamantion point in front of the word). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All citations given are valid & relevant. Verify your thoughts prior to challenging citations. Names & info are on sites that are cited and linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nice try epert--24.168.101.107 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thomas Eagleton. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Poludniak

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

WP:BLP1E, no sources apart from that one event. Per related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Eagleton Weigand. JN466 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by RHaworth ((A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Riess

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

Non-notable autobiography. No significant sources to be found covering this individual. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. no significiant coverage in reliable sources sounds reasonable. A redirect to a discography also seems something sensible but doesn't need an admin to do. Spartaz Humbug! 12:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underground (Analog Pussy album)

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

Another editor PROD'ded this article twice, claiming poor quality and lack of sources in the article, which are illegitimate reasons to propose deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE. Therefore I am taking it to AfD because there are a few reviews out there for this album, such as this but there has been no significant coverage in reliable sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are several album articles for this band, and they all have similar issues. One was redirected to the band article sometime in the past, and that might be a worthwhile solution for all of them, including this one, but we'll see what happens with this debate. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying

2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a multiple article listing for the five articles that have been created for the qualifying tournaments for the opening five competitions of the 2011 ATP World Tour and 2011 WTA Tour. In previous years, qualifying articles have only been created for the Grand Slams, that is, the four major tournaments on the men's and women's tennis tours. I argue that qualifying tournaments for ATP tournaments are NOT notable. Whilst these tournaments appear to pass the general notability guidelines, media references to qualifying tournaments are almost exclusively as part of regular sports reporting. As such, most qualifying tournaments will fail notability under the criteria of Wikipedia is not news, as routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, as events, these qualifying tournaments do not generally have significant historical impact in and of themselves: rather, they are interesting only as moments in player biographies, or as a small part of the story of the tournament, which is itself notable. Qualifiers are already mentioned in tournament articles and whilst, potentially, a particularly eventful qualifying tournament could be notable, I do not feel that they are habitually notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages, also created on 2011 tour qualifying tournaments:

2011 Brisbane International – Women's Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Brisbane International – Men's Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Aircel Chennai Open – Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Qatar ExxonMobil Open – Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the context of an encyclopaedia, they're not. They're tournaments which fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines as they garner no more than routine coverage, usually of the progress of any one player from a given country, rather than of the tournament as a whole. Thhe only significant outcome - the qualifiers - is adequately covered in tournament articles as is. Pretty Green (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect the articles to the appropriate singles pages (if wanted) or delete. I think qualifying draws are not important enough for a separate article, but could be included in the singles pages. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Qualifying rounds are part of the tournament itself. They don't get less coverage than the first rounds of the main tournament actually. Plus, I don't see any reason that justifies the fact that Grand Slams can have qualifying articles when the other tournaments can't, their qualifying draws are just as notable as every other ATP/WTA tournaments. Qualis in general are very interesting as they provide lots of information about lesser known players or junior players. Of course we could just put a link to the draws on the WTA/ATP websites but they are usually taken down after a year and then become very difficult to find. So yes, Olivia Sanchez beating Liana Ungur in the first quali round of Auckland might not be the most exciting thing ever but I don't see how it could harm wikipedia either. (Sorry for my english, I tried my best but it's not my mother tongue.) PS: As for including tournament to the main tournament page, it's not a bad idea but it could make the page harder to read. Djezonfly (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly as of Djezonfly. I think if we keep them you can follow a specific player throughout a career a bit more and see where he made "noise" for the first time and that stuff. I see no reason why they are less notable than the qualifying articles of the Grand Slams. Kante4 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course qualifying rounds are part of the tournament. What else could they be ? Another tournament ? No, every ATP/WTA tournaments has its qualifying rounds and qualifiers. Djezonfly (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The qualifying is often referred to as "the qualifying tournament" while "the tournament" or a specific name like "the ASB Classic" often only refers to the main draw. That's why the front page of all the nominated tournaments give a start date which is the start of the main draw without saying it's the start of the main draw. http://www.asbclassic.co.nz/news/day-one-schedule.html says "Day One of the ASB Classic" (without mentioning the main draw or the qualifying) about day one of the main draw. And http://www.qatartennis.org/news/more/2/162 says "day one" and "The first day of Qatar ExxonMobil [O]pen" without specifying the main draw. Sources generally don't say somebody played in a tournament if they failed to advance from the qualifying. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the draws the starting date for the Qualifying and the Main Draw is the same e.g. here and here. So it is one tournament. Kante4 (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point the first time you explained it. All I'm saying is that you'll never see a qualifying tournament without a main tournament, and the reverse is true. As a result, they're part of the same event. Djezonfly (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Godbrothers

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

DeviantArt fan, but a Google discloses no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Like always, please prove this AfD wrong! Shirt58 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banarsi Prasad Saxena

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

AND

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

This article has been tagged for sources and notability for over three years, but in that time nothing has been done to show notability. My searches have failed to produce much that could be considered as establishing notability. For example, the first twenty Google hits were all Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, blog posts, Appearances of the name in lists, passing mentions in pages about other subjects, and an acknowledgement (saying "My thanks are due to Dr. Banarsi Prasad Saxena for preparing the index and making improvements in the manuscript"). A PROD was disputed, the reason given being "probably notable per Gbooks results that cite it and discuss it". However, "probably" notable is not good enough, and none of the Google books hits I checked "discussed" him: every one of them merely mentioned him once. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No indication that this meets WP:PROF.Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Keep per WP:PROF criteria #1: # The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.. Banarsi Prasad Saxena seems to be a widely quoted scholar: [25], [26], [27], [28]; I personally would give it the benefit of the doubt therefore. --Cyclopiatalk 15:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to full keep after Msrasnw sourcing that seems to consolidate WP:PROF criteria #1 as being met. --Cyclopiatalk 01:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counting mentions (which are by no means of a significant amount in this case) is meaningless. Do you have any understanding of this field or of what the importance of his name appearing in those texts is? Criteria 1 is met when you can prove "significant impact" not when you are guessing at it.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My research comes up the same as JamesBWatson: Several things written or stated by this person, about something else; a couple of namechecks in lists of historians; and nothing at all about this person, documenting xyr life and works. I note that everything that Cyclopia points to above falls into the first of those categories. There's nothing — provided in the article or locatable — to build a biography with. This person may well be a "known authority". But that knowledge does not appear to have been written down and published, and is thus unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think an alternative transliteration may help: Banarsi Prasad Saksena noted as one of the Historians of the 'Allahabad School' (the others being R.P. Tripathi and Beni Prasad). (Farhat Hasan in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1995), Reviewing The New Cambridge History of India, 1.5- The Mughal Empire ) His magnum opus is B. P. Saksena, History of Shahjahan of Dihli (rev. ed. 1958, repr. 1962) is refered to in three cited sources as the key text. Seems sufficient other evidence under this name. - Domesticity and power in the early Mughal world by Ruby Lal p54 fn13 - mentions another work and a change to Saxena. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • … but it doesn't tell us one single verifiable piece of information about this person, and doesn't actually state anything about "a change to Saxena", merely about a convention that the author is going to use in citing a source by this person (about something else) further on in the book. Even the Hasan and other sources don't tell us something about this person, other than that xe is part of the "Allahabad school". Where's a source that gives basic biographical facts about this person? Where's an independent and reliable source that documents — say — this person's birthdate, place of residence, job, and lifetime accomplishments? None of the footnotes, unadorned book citations, and incidental mentions so far mentioned (all of which are in the first two classes that I mentioned above) give any basic biographical facts that can be put into an encyclopaedia biography. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I think rather than not one single verifiable piece of information we have the following:
        1. Names: Banarsi Prasad Saxena or'Banarsi Prasad Saksena
        2. was a historian associated with Allahabad University
        3. was part of the "Allahabad school"
        4. awarded a PhD. by University of London, School of Oriental Studies in 1931
        5. wrote important book Shah Jahan of Dilli run to several editions.
        6. head of the department of history in University of Jodhpur
        7. head of the department of history in University of Allahabad (retired pre 1967)
        8. productive period (judged by publications - 1930s-1970s
      • not included in the article
        • we have him staying in Streatham till the end of the war (with Dr Streda)
        • his son being Radhey Shyam
      • This is not a lot it is true but it seems to me more than sufficient to establish verifiable notability. Professor Heramb Chaturvedi's ‘The Evolution of the Allahabad School of History (1912-1955 AD) (Revised to Emergence of Nationalist Historiography and the historians of Allahabad) sounds useful but sadly my library does not include it. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
        • You exemplify my point. You don't present, and don't have, a single source supporting items 5, 6, 7, and 8; and don't address any of the questions that I asked. Indeed, you state explicitly that 8 is your own conclusion, not based upon sources but guessed by you yourself. That's not writing based upon what is already documented by the world. That's making biographical facts up. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Oh dear - I think I have added sources to the article for evertyhing except no.8. Which was on the basis of his having published work in the 30s 50s 60s 70s and it seems 80s even though one of the sources cited indicates he retired before 67 from Allahabad. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
* On his magnum opus we have three sources citing it as the "The best biography of Shah Jahan is Banarsi Prasad Saksena" "The Standard history in English is B.P.Saksena" "The best secondary source remains Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of Shahjahan"
^ http://www.answers.com/topic/shah-jahan Gale Encyclopedia of Biography: Shah Jahan
^ Kalādarśana: American studies in the art of India By Joanna Gottfried Williams (p5"The Standard history in English is B.P.Saksena")
^ Architecture of Mughal India, Part 1, Volume 4‎ - Page 346Catherine Ella Blanshard Asher - 1992 - 368 pages "The best secondary source remains Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of Shahjahan"
* On head of history at Jodphur http://books.google.com/books?id=6VNXAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher:icon&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=66 is referenced to National Council of Educational Research and Training., 1964
* On head of history at Allahabad http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon+%22Hindu+Society%22&btnG=Search+Books#hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&sa=X&ei=4ZEkTcmFBoOzhAfC3vzkAQ&ved=0CCcQBSgA&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saxena%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon+%22Hindu+Society%22&spell=1&fp=fc8aae4abccfd483 Hindu society in the sixteenth century:with special reference to northern India Ashok Kumar Srivastava Milind, 1981
Is there a problem with these refs or is it that you want links to google books putting in? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • delete I can't see anything here that raises him above the level of a standard academic career.--Scott Mac 13:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Distinguished contributions as shown above, some time ago so not much web impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets wp:prof. People in "standard academic careers" do not become heads of department at two universities, or write what becomes definitive books in their subject. That sort of bio = an authority ion their field. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article as it stands is sufficient both to provide some basic academic-biography detail about its subject and to show that he made an impact on the field as one of the principals of a major school of thought in Indian history. It would be unreasonable to expect him to satisfy 21st-century standards for academic citation counts etc in order to keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I expect that research would reveal that he wrote a variety of articles in his active life. It is however unreasonable to expect an article on a man active c1930-c1970 to have as detailed a biography as we would for a living and active historian. The article has a reasonable list of footnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salmaan Taseer. Spartaz Humbug! 12:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Mumtaz Qadri

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

WP:ONEEVENT. I appreciate details are scant but don't believe topic is notable outside the assassination event, and that can be covered more relevantly in the parent article. On a side note I cannot believe that image is PD or the tag is suitable. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC) S.G.(GH) ping! 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is currently a merge discussion going on which, so far, has attained a consensus of support for a merge. Even the author of the Malik Mumtaz Qadri article has voiced support for a merge. As it is, there is little independent notability to this person, and a large degree of the article's text (and, as a node to the nominator, the image as well, which I've now removed) was a copyright violation in anycase. Franklinville (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:BLP1E. Agree with merge in principle, but the article has only one cite, so there is not really much to merge. --FormerIP (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Salman_Taseer#Death, as this is the only reason they are notable. SmartSE (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Salman Taseer, per Smartse, as the only thing this person is notable for is the assassination. Bcperson89 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Talk:Salmaan Taseer#merge. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Salman Taseer page. Person has not been notable aside from one event and it is still unlikely we will find a lot about him, apart from the fact that he was just an assassinator who was destined to assassinate a politician. 58.169.184.178 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I think this page should remain intact as this will a hot topic and people will come looking for more information about Malik Mumtaz Qadri. Besides people will be interested in knowing about the trail and investigation progress with Malik Mumtaz Qadri.
    • Comment That may all indeed be true about what people are interested in, but I suspect that they should find that information in the Taseer article, as Qadri has no independent notability. Taseer's assassination is certainly a hot topic, agreed, but I'm not convinced that Qadri is, or not yet anyway. DBaK (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per comments above. Any useful text which is not already in the Taseer article should be copied across but I fear there is little or none. DBaK (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the article is alive and well at its new name Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri. Only Malik Mumtaz Qadri is already redirected, so this is a job half done. The history is a little obscure but it appears that someone objected to, and undid, the redirect on MMQ, feeling there was no consensus, and then it was later moved to MMHQ and MMQ only was redirected. One result is that the AfD tag on MMHQ is now out of date and does not point to this discussion, so it's all a bit of a mess. I would try to help with that last point but there are fearsome warnings about messing around with the tag, so I will leave it to an admin to ponder. For what it's worth my feeling is it's been done once and the MMHQ article - which is not even linked from the Taseer one! - should go the same way. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: - fixed. That's better! DBaK (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) It's back again, and it's obviously pointless to update this further. DBaK (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update again: I've undone the redirect from MMQ to the Taseer article, and redirected it to MMHQ instead. Otherwise it just confused the situation, masking the fact that MMHQ still exists and has not been merged or redirected. Since MMQ was moved to MMHQ it would seem to follow that they should be debated together and share a common fate, not be dealt with by halves; MMQ should simply be a redirect to MMHQ until the outcome for both is known. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up:It requires a major clean up.

CoercorashTalkContr. 10:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge consensus was alredy gained on the talk page merger proposal, i twas then opened by an editor without any reason and against the grain of consensus.(Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
    • Comment - yes, exactly. But unfortunately this has been a real mess, partly because the debate has been split between this discussion and the Taseer talk page discussion about the merge, with people obviously not knowing what's been said where or referring to differing processes and consensuses (if that's a word). The move, half way through all this, from MMQ to MMHQ has not exactly led to greater clarity either, indeed I would say it has perhaps helped stifle the debate. I hope that this can be resolved, one way or another but with some clarity and finality, soon. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unanimous here too though ;)talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but I could bet you a Cadbury Creme Egg we haven't heard the last of it ... DBaK (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
at this point the onus is on them for consensus,Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hagger

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

Prolific yet otherwise unremarkable author. Fails WP:GNG. A Google news search turned up a few mentions as owner of restored hall in Sussex, but certainly no mention of their "grand unified theory" of history. Almost all sources used are the author's own works. From the history of the article, and related articles on author's poems, a number of "single purpose accounts" seem to be associated with this BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Vanity article, no evidence of independent notability. --JN466 13:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator’s facts are shaky: the restored hall was in Suffolk, not Sussex and “no mention of their (i.e. his) grand unified theory” is contradicted by the 63,400 results for the book that has Grand Unified Theory as a subtitle. “Unremarkable” is a subjective judgement. The editor of any author needs to source comments in author’s works. Author’s many books are all published by reputable publishers, all material is verifiable. There are several hundred thousand references to the books on internet. Sample on 5.1.2011 showed a total of 833,600 results for author/book search for nine of them: in literature, Selected Poems 133,000 results; Collected Poems 120,000 results; Classical Odes 66,200 results; Overlord 43,900 results; Armageddon 45,700 results; in history, The Fire and the Stones, which is subtitled A Grand Unified Theory of World History and Religion, 63,400 results; The Syndicate 52,400 results; The Secret Founding of America 157,000 results; and in philosophy, The Universe and the Light 152,000 results. Entries for author in International Who’s Who in Poetry, International Who’s Who of Authors and Writers, Dictionary of International Biography, The Cambridge Blue Book, Writers Directory and other similar publications for many years. David Gascoyne, Kathleen Raine and Asa Briggs spoke at launch of Selected Poems/The Fire and the Stones (pictorial evidence in A Mystic Way). Ted Hughes wrote author a six-page letter about the grand unified history theory/other works, see Letters of Ted Hughes, ed. by Christopher Reid. Author made 25 live radio broadcasts to US about The Secret Founding of America in May-June 2007 (verifiable from contact list supplied by publisher), indicative of his US profile. Similar radio broadcasts anticipated when its sequel The Secret American Dream comes out in US in April 2011. Many endorsements on books’ back covers (e.g. by Laurens van der Post), not included in article. Submit there is enough notability to keep. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The conflict of interest relates to the posting of a picture by the author’s PA on 2-3 Jan 2011. The picture could not be uploaded because the name Hagger had a long-term, unjustified vandalism tag attached to it. Wikipedia administrator looked into this and removed the vandalism tag after realising the uploader was not a vandal. The picture is now uploaded and in the public domain. The conflict of interest relates to the uploading of the picture in relation to the vandalism tag. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has nothing to do with the fact that there don't appear to be any secondary sources discussing Hagger. I just don't see any evidence of notability. --JN466 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Certainly meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK, and possibly many other guidelines for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. References overhauled, secondary sources now in, author-referencing reduced. Author's works have been translated into several languages - Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, etc. - and are sold in bookshops worldwide, see book search results. Author has international/global theme and profile.Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Agree it meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK, and sources more detailed. Google search also throws up plenty of results. Notability satisfied for inclusion.Pink dog with cigar (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)— Pink dog with cigar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Minor tidying up now completed. All issues now addressed, meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK criteria. Seven days have now passed, can deletion/multiple issues tags now be lifted? Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Courcelles 00:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity Players of Harlem

Diversity Players of Harlem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Also nominated
Shawn Luckey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dwight Ali Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ciera Payton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marq Overton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Part of a large walled garden of dubious articles surrounding this theatre company that also includes this AfD. The company itself may be notable but the article's sources seem to be concentrating on actors that have appeared in their productions, not the company itself. There are sources out there although they tend to be listings. However, the articles on the founders and minor actors are definitely, I think, non-notable. Articles originally created by User:Shawnluckey, the name of one of the founders. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le Secret des Vikings

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

This entry fails WP:BK and it should have been deleted in the first nomination. The topic is also a completely non-notable fringe topic. If you disagree please specify, with evidence, which criteria of WP:BK are met. Griswaldo (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 independence of the DoD source is dubious; there is no other significant coverage by reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Monkey Ministries

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

Unremarkable non-profit. Fails WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage in any reliable sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call that source "independent of the subject". --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Is there some connection between the DoD, American Forces Press Service and SPM that is not obvious? These appear to be independent. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is a Department of Defence Community Relations Press Release a suitable independent and reliable source for establishing the notability of an organisation who's prime claim to fame is supporting Department of Defence Community Relations? Some would argue the source is nothing other than propaganda. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy of the excluded middle. SMM does not exist to serve the DoD CR, and the DoD CR does not exist to serve the SMM. Unless I am mistaken, they are independent organizations that just happened to do some work together. Am I mistaken? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be officially connected as organisations, but I don't regard the source as being sufficiently independent and reliable to establish notability for the reason I have stated. That is my view. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your first post here you state your opinion that you don't consider them independent. However, you didn't post anything about why you claim that. IDo you believe that this S&S article about Boeing's ABL falls into the same category? If not, why not? I'm not being an ass here, I'm seriously trying to understand why you believe this does not meet the definition of independence. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did state "why" in my second comment. We are looking to establish notability, not merely verify a fact. You have to ask yourself does the DoD have any interest in promoting the subject? Is there a close connection given that SMM participate in the DOD America Supports You program - is there any COI there? --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've answered a question with another (series of) questions. Apparently nothing to see here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered your original question twice. I'm not going to respond to your unrelated analogy. How about we let other editors make up their minds? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Ranch Academy

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

Dubious notability and none of the sources appear to be reliable. Laurent (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I'm not wildly enthusiastic about saying so. It's a high school, of sorts, and high schools are generally presumed to be notable. Among other things, this school fields teams that play other high schools in the area, so its name turns up on the sports pages of area newspapers. (I found several sports-related ghits in Google News archives, together with ghits related to personnel and former students.) I judge the http://www.strugglingteens.com/ source to be fairly reliable (although most of the article was sourced to the school's own statements about itself). One interesting thing I found (not to be included for various WP:BLP reasons) was an editorial in a national newspaper in which the publisher said he had a child attending this school. I've done a little bit of cleanup on the article -- more is needed. --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm changing my opinion. Earlier I said "delete" because I consider that the automatic-notability rule only applies to diploma-granting institutions, and kids are only at this institution for a maximum of one year. However it turns out that the ranch can grant a diploma if the kid was already a senior upon entering: "Credit earned at DRA will transfer to high schools, colleges, and universities throughout the United States and internationally. Students near completion of their graduation requirements can complete and receive an accredited High School Diploma while at DRA." That's a pretty weak reed to hang notability on, but combined with Orlady's findings of coverage I think it may be enough. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kneeling chair. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balans

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

Specific product, not different enough from other chairs (outside of its marketing literature) to warrant its own article. Should exist as a note about chair variations in another article if mentioned at all. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uggg: Just REDIR it, sheesh. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone makes it sound as if I've done something terribly wrong by listing the article on AfD. If I should have done something else please let me know, otherwise I'm left here guessing (or maybe I'm just misinterpreting you). Thanks! Wenttomowameadow (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, just be bold! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenys Colclough

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

Tagged for A7 but claims some notability, procedural nomination as a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House (season 5). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Contract (House)

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

The only source for this article is a link to a forum discussion on the medical aspects of it. Apparently it stars (female) porn actress Devon Michaels as Timothy Moore. O RLY?.

The only substantive content is a plot summary, which appears to be drawn entirely form someone's own observations of the show. This is WP:OR.

This article either needs to be properly sourced, or removed. Notability is not inherited, after all. An article already exists at House Wiki, though to be honest it doesn't look any better than this one. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of independent notability of this episode, and no evidence that House is of such cultural impact as to warrant a sub-article for every episode. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • House is one of those series where it is likely that you will get a commentator or three for each and every episode. Not certainly, but there is definitely a high chance of it. Would anyone happen to know who those weekly commentators would be? NW (Talk) 04:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Nothing but a plot summary in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Pure plot summaries have a proper place in the episode list. One review itself (especially when every episode is reviewed) doesn't indicate notability of this episode; it's nothing special. As there don't seem to be efforts to bring the House episodes up to WP guidelines and policies through expansion, the best cleanup measure is to delete/redirect/merge. – sgeureka t•c 09:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Expressions In Britain

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

Subject material not notable (it's just one exhibition at a gallery that holds several each year). Contains much original research, cites no sources, orphaned for over two years NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VWorker

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

Tagged for speedy, may be borderline notable. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Philippines Representatives

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

The concept of a "Big Four" or "Grand Slam" series of pageants has already been deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRAND SLAM BEAUTIES, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four Pageants + Miss TQI and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angola at the Big Four pageants. This article should really have been included in the last AFD, but was not noticed due to its unorthodox page name. O Fenian (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Padovani

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

Does not seem to assert notability. He could have been anything in that group - the janitor...

Even if he did contribute importantly to the discovery - that does not seem to mean that he passes WP:ACADEMIC. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your commitment to improve the article. I will do my best to be diplomatic, but when articles about academics are nominated for deletion without regard for long established policy, it tries the patience of other editors. I add that this particular AfD is not a clear-cut case and is worthy of discussion here, but its nominator seems to have been unaware of WP:Prof#C1 when he proposed it for speedy deletion. If an article is "shitty", policy requires it to be improved (where there are sources, as there are in this case) rather than be deleted speedily. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The subject is not a professor. And as the article was it wasn't even clear that he was an academic - much less what kind of an impact his reserach might have had if he were.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not too pleased with your comments implying that I'm "incompetent" at James F. Allen. I use google books and James F. Allen turned up nothing. And I couldn't see anything solid in a google search. Notability is not always that obvious. Maunus nominated this for deletion based on the same premise.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments about your search there. It's best to roll with the punches. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dive Rite

Dive Rite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. the consensus is clearly to keep, & I see no valid argument for deletion; even if this is fringe, its well weithin the sort of fringe that we include as notable DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen body hypothesis

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

Article is mostly made up of fringe ideas from both apologists and skeptics being given undue weight. The subject should be a summarized section in the Resurrection of Jesus or Empty tomb article. LittleJerry (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit / Procedural note: This nomination was pretty much invisible because nominator did not apply {{afd2}} to generate the header. As such, I'm removing it from the January 4 log and adding it to the January 7 log, as I doubt anybody saw it on the Jan 4 list where it appeared to be an irrelevant comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dive Rite which was listed above it. Additionally, nominator did not use the required edit summary of "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see (debate)", so this appeared to be a standard edit on watchlists. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Yes, many of the ideas from both the apologists and the Dan Brown-esque conspiracy types are flaky. However, they indisputably exist and can be sourced, which is all that matters. It's a notable theory, although the original wave of "prove weird events that are kind of based on the Bible" has passed and was strongest from 1900-1970 or so. Wikipedia certainly covers such ideas anyway (stuff like The Passover Plot, say) even when they don't have currency now. Even a quick Google search shows that the apologist side of the debate is still deployed against this issue, which again would probably be sufficient even if *nobody* ever believed it (a la the Satanic ritual abuse panic). Sample links just from the first page of Google results on "Jesus body stolen disciples": [38] , [39] , [40].
To be clear, yes the article is currently bad and needs more sources, but I've actually intended to improve this article with proper scholarly sources since I found it a month ago - I recently tried to make the article less horrible than it was before. There's definitely enough material for it. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes but Wikipedia isn't supposed to give undue weight to fringe ideas. The Resurrection of Jesus article was made up of a back and forth between apologists and skeptics arguing over whether it happened or no. Thankfully it was restructured and the debate over it's authenticity being addressed in the "Origin of the narrative" section and citing repected textual critics rather than people who are simply try to prove or disprove it. They can be cited but we should give too much detail to their fringe ideas. LittleJerry (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. One, I'm not sure this can be so lightly dismissed as "fringe." Fringe now perhaps, but clearly relevant at one time (the Dialogue with Trypho citation in the article is pretty ancient), and still not considered entirely dead judging by the above apologetics websites. Wikipedia contains articles on plenty of theological debates and theories that seem utterly nonsensical to modern eyes, yet once were relevant. Second, assume it is "fringe" - if anything, it would be undue weight to fully discuss the hypothesis in the Resurrection of Jesus article, and I say this as someone who is a fan of merges of small topics to bigger ones in general. If it's as fringe an idea as you suggest, then it should merit no more than a paragraph in the Resurrection article. Yet I feel that - once the article is straightened out - there is certainly room for considerably more than one paragraph of sourced content (including material from "respected textual critics" who I'm sure have covered this debate as well). So it's deserving of an article, just as sufficiently sourced astrology topics or apocryphal saints who probably didn't exist have articles. SnowFire (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / update. Chatted with someone on this and apparently The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave covers this from the skeptical scholarly position. (I don't imagine it'll be hard to dig up the apologetic side of the argument, as that's mostly already in the article, and this book apparently includes some original apologetic material anyway even if it's being responded to.) Sadly none of the bookstores in my area have this in stock - I called - but I have this on mail order now and will update the article once I get it and have read through it. (Or, if there's really nothing there, I'll be happy to help merge the article after all, but I find that chance incredibly unlikely.) SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Like is often said, merging is not an exercise of the deletion tool, and there's no consensus here to do so. That discussion can of course continue on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Beatriz (2005)

Tropical Storm Beatriz (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TROP is currently going through anotability debate. The article being listed was a short-lived storm that has no outside sources from the National Hurricane Center (NHC). Wikipedia is not a new report and all news reports were when the storms was active. Although Beatriz formed in June for the first time since 2003, it is actually a routine event (there have been season with Category 5 intensity storms in June). As such, it fails WP:N and I am nominating this for deletion even though I will have no major objection for the article being kept. YE Tropical Cyclone 05:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nom. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bredbury

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

This article is about a notable footballer from Hong Kong. The article however, contains absolutely no references, and a recently placed BLP Prod tag was removed from the article. I added {{unreferencedBLP}} to it, but was reliably informed it's no benefit.

Since the article is composed entirely of unsourced material, the BLP rules state that unreferenced or unsourced material be removed immediately. The whole article being so, it's filed here for deletion. Barking Fish 04:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

***WITHDRAWN - Passing admin, please close.*** BarkingFish 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete completely unsourced and per nom, BLP rules state the material needs to be removed immediatley. Dusti*poke* 04:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC) :As Cullen stated, there is other course of action to take rather than delete, and while there is only one reference, which makes it seem like it's a non biased reference (see source name) it's not totally unreference. I am the individual who sought help from BarkingFish, who sought help from someone else, so there were originally three individuals who felt there was something wrong with this article, and there's nothing wrong with bringing it to a community discussion. Dusti*poke* 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator concedes that subject is notable. Instead of deleting, the correct course of action is to add references to reliable sources to the article. When possible, we improve unreferenced BLPs, rather than deleting them. Cullen328 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nominator and Dusti seem to misunderstand the BLP policy. It is contentious unreferenced BLP material that needs to be removed immediately. There is nothing contentious in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. As Cullen328 just said, BarkingFish, you seem to misunderstand the policy at hand. Starting an AfD discussion and point blank stating that the subject is notable in your rationale is not a way to get the article deleted. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Erpert - I know the subject is notable so I wasn't going to deliberately omit that - I was going by information given to me on IRC, where I had sought comment on the article having no sources. I explained what I had done and "take it to AFD" was the advice given to me. So I did. BarkingFish 13:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are some sources already for this article althought they may be not enough. But Dusti said the article is completely unsourced before and this time.FootballHK (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are not "some sources" - there is one. If you're including the external links as references, turn them into references. At the moment, from your reflist, it looks like the article has one source, so unless you got it all from the same site, please make that clear. BarkingFish 13:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So it is not "absolutely no references". FootballHK (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article about a notable footballer who played in FIFA "A" international matches (verified by an external link). Sourcing should be improved, but it's silly to nominate for deletion simply because the information is primarily verified by external links (which happen to be reliable sources). Jogurney (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I've read this discussion twice over the last 24 hours, and I can't find any consensus here. Could very well eb worth discussing again in a year's time, but for now, there's no consensus here. Courcelles 00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Honors

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

The subject is the commander of an American aircraft carrier who recently received media attention when some "inappropriate" videos he made a couple of years ago became public. News coverage today says he has been relieved of command and will likely face some disciplinary measures, effectively ending his naval career. Prior to this event he was quoted briefly in the news in his capacity as a task force commander during some naval operations, but there hadn't been any significant coverage otherwise. The subject does not meet WP:MILPEOPLE or the general notability guidelines, and this appears to be a classic "one event" bio. FYI, the article was prodded immediately after creation, but that was removed by the creator.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not delete this article. I come to wikipedia to get basic facts. This guy is news worthy and I want to know who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:GNG. He currently falls under WP:BLP1E (no significant coverage before the incident). Jarkeld (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was a senior commander on a carrier, with aircraft capable of nuclear strike, his judgement and character and the interaction between himself and those under his command and naval officers above him and the US political and media establishment is an ongoing issue. Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I have to disagree and state he does meet WP:MILPEOPLE. He previously commanded the 6th fleet and currently is the captain of the world's largest naval vessel. 71.110.71.74 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe 71.110.x.x is the same editor who created the article, which is nicely written aside from the notability issue.
      • I am the creator. Just like you are the nominator for deletion. Why would my opinion be worth less? Similarly, in the nomination you state that the article was prodded but removed by creator. The process says anyone can remove the prod tag for, "any reason whatsoever." --71.110.65.2 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reading of WP:MILPEOPLE, and I may be wrong, is that leading a large group confers notability only in combat. Honors commanded the 6th Fleet, and later the USS Enterprise, in non-combat deployments. It's not clear if planes from the carrier have flown combat sorties in Afghanistan since he took over in May 2010, but my understanding is that the Afghan combatants are not armed with significant anti-aircraft capabilities anyway. If so, the subject would not meet MILPEOPLE #6. I don't see any other criteria there which he'd meet either. Perhaps someone from the Military project could clarify that. As for GNG, his coverage in mainstream media has been almost totally due to this one event.   Will Beback  talk 
    • Correction: Honors commanded the 6th Fleet's command vessel. A fleet would be commanded by a flag officer, not a captain.   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honors was not the 6th Fleet commander; that position was and is held by VADM Bruce Clingan. The Newsweek article on which this assertion was based is incorrect. Quickfoot (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote keep. If this guy deserves to be deleted, then so does Holly Graf and plenty others. This makes no sense. His actions certainly are relevant and timely to the historical events happening in DC re DADT. LP-mn (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in relation to recent repeal of DADT as mentioned in several articles about the controversy. Issue made front page of today's Wall Street Journal. Rillian (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too much of the RUMORED content of the videos has not been established. Said to contain homosexual slurs? Okay, but not proven....only non-attributed testimonial quotes to that effect. Wait until the content of the videos is fully established and verified by multiple first-person journalistic review before posting ANY of this. Astrobill —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
What rumored content are you referring to? The videos are posted online - nothing rumored about them. Rillian (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep nominator continues to talk about news coverage...then says article does not meet notability guidelines.

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is an essay, "This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article." even then this essay states: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." no one here argues that this owens has not been in "multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources."

    WP:ONEVENT is probably one of the most abused AFD argument and misunderstood guideline. "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage." In this case, the minor event and the person are the same. Based on WP:ONEVENT guidelines, would the nominator agree to close this AFD and redirect this article to the Owen Honors incident?

    The example in the guideline itself states "For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident". This is NOT a "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" essay argument, as this is the EXAMPLE used in the notability guideline. Surely this case is more important than the Steve Bartman incident (a baseball scandal), because this incident, on the advent of gays being allowed to openly serve, shows the bias of some of those highest in the military and the issues the bias they still have to overcome. Adamtheclown (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As typical of the WP:ONEVENT Deleters, they don't have much of a leg to stand on. Perhaps we should also delete Salvatore Giunta? Seriously though, I do think that a number of military personnel that reach this level in their career do deserve at least some mention in an article. It's just a matter of finding proper documentation to reference and some soul that would at least get the ball rollings. --Hourick (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. While I concur with Jarkeld's reasoning above, the momentary attention warrants having the article. A year from now this question warrants revisiting. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE KEEP. Notable in relation to recent repeal of DADT as mentioned in several articles about the controversy. Issue made front page of today's Wall Street Journal. (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.187.90 (talk)
  • Delete, as the scandal is more important then the individual. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea. Being relieved as the commander of the world's longest navy ship over a rather dramatic and timely (in the wake of DADT repeal) issue is kind of a big deal; OTOH, I get the sense that he just misses if Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is the guide. My guess is, when the history of DADT is written, historians will think of this as a significant tie-in, but of course no one has enough distance yet to write a real history. What may happen here is that the article is deleted for now, but resurfaces in some form as DADT gets more scholarly treatment. So ... thanks for your work, and be sure to keep a copy in case this gets deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this falls squarely under one event. The debate taking place is is over the policy, not the page in question. If you don't like the policy then there are other avenues for making your views heard but keeping an article in violation is not the right course. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; commanding an aircraft carrier doesn't, on its own, mean he's notable. Being the commander of an aircraft carrier sacked in a blaze of publicity probably means he is. The Land (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why should this Wiki entry be any different than the Tailhook scandal ? Or for that matter the Exxon Valdez? The Honor entry seems rather well written and researched to me, and certainly is noteworthy. We also have no way of knowing what long ranging effects this will have on the US Navy and their command structure vis a vis his Captain and other higher-ups knowing of the video yet not taking action sooner. Sector001 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. But this means there may be a need for an article on the videos not on Owen Honors. Thats why we have a tailhook article, but no Cpt. Rick Ludwig article. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MILPEOPLE is a project essay and really has no relevance for an AfD. It's not part of our notability guidelines. In my view, this article is precluded by BLP1E because Honors wouldn't otherwise be notable. If the event is demonstrated to have an enduring effect, perhaps an article on the "event" can be created at a later time but there is no evidence of that right now. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was Captain of the largest warship in the world and his actions have created an international stir. People will be looking up this story for years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep On one hand, it would seem to me that the commanding officer of a major ship of the fleet is notable enough for an article. Would like to see more biographical details, though. Blueboy96 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is the recipient of the Legion of Merit. http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/enterprise/Documents/CaptHonors.pdf That alone makes him notable. Mike 22:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — User:mfaul123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • WP:MILPEOPLE, while an essay, only mentions the MOH and the DSF, Navy Cross and Air Force Cross. WP:ANYBIO mentions: "well known or significant award or honor". The Legion of Merit doesn't seem to fall into that category. Jarkeld (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The award is sixth in the order of precedence ... pretty high, I think. And like I said earlier, even without that he was the commander of a major ship of the fleet.Blueboy96 23:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sixth is well below second, the highest-ranking honor that brings notability, and then only if given repeatedly. Many officers command capital ships during times of relative peace and have uneventful tours of duty. It doesn't make them notable. Merely commanding a ship, however large, does not convey notability. That's not a judgment on the quality of the men or women, it's just saying that it is a routine activity. WP does not automatically add articles for mayors of small cities either.   Will Beback  talk  11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Story and the man are noteworthy.Tlatseg (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Keep I think this is an important topic. I saw one of the videos and they were just comical, not aggressive or humiliating. This means that this guy was dumped just because he had a sense of humor and was willing to share it in his work place. Now this is important from a sociological point of view, it shows our values, what is consider allowed and forbidden. While a part of society is going towards openness and criticism (The Simpsons, American's Dad, etc), this is strongly forbidden in specific social contexts. It also has implications for the recruits, for instance I know I would want to go to the army if I knew I would find a place where one could have friends and good humor. Firing this guy sends an important message to all those recruits out there: if you're in the navy, laughing or criticizing in not allowed! So keep this here. It is a very important sign of our way of seeing the world and where we're going to. For all of this to make sense it is important to know that the person in question was competent and had an impeccable record, so this entry is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.138.128 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to WP:MILPEOPLE, "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." The nine "in particular" categories that follow are simply demonstrations of how an individual will "almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify." It does not say that the individual must fall into at least one of those categories; merely that falling into at least one "almost always" indicates that they have "significant coverage". The standard appears to be "significant coverage", and Capt. Honors certainly meets that standard. If the argument is that the event is more important than the person, the article could easily be re-edited and re-named to fit that criteria. Why delete the article and then have to start all over again? Whether treated as an individual or as an event, the subject of the article is notable. MishaPan (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete classic WP:1E. 203.97.106.191 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after consideration. I recognize that WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS is a factor here, and certainly a lot of the other keep votes are either unaware of or blatantly ignoring these policies (argh guys do better!), but a decent amount of coverage discusses how this incident fits into a "changing Navy culture" as gay people will soon be able to serve openly, new fields open to women, etc. (This article also discusses the incident in the context of other military scandals.) I feel that we can make a reasonably bet that this will be referred to for a while, particularly as DADT repeal is implemented. However, Honors's life story is unnecessary; perhaps it could be stripped out and the article renamed to "Owen Honors incident" or something? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge whatever is relevant with the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) entry. Obviously not notable for anything beyond this incident. JCO312 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy is now (through youtube :)) way more popular than some president. I desperately needed information about him. Thanks to Wikipedia now I know a lot about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.36.112 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Honors is not notable, then neither are all the American Idol contestants and Survivor contestants. Logophile (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Honor story is within the context of larger events Granite07 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was the commanding officer of a capital ship, that makes him noteworthy even without the incident.XavierGreen (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTNEWS refers to "routine news coverage" of a person or event, but the reports involved here most decidedly do not fall under that description. WP:BLP1E is a guideline that does give wiggle room for articles like these in that Honors is not a low-profile individual; he was the captain of one of the most well-known ships in the world and is involved in an incident that has received international coverage. Given the amount of detail that is available regarding his military career prior to the scandal and the significance of his role in the scandal, I think Wikipedia would best be served by keeping this article in his name rather than redirect to USS Enterprise (CVN-65) or some other name. I have no objection for creating an article about the scandal if the focus of reports begins to involve other officers under his command. Location (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as noted, this isn't really a WP:BLP1E issue; while there is a 'one event' that pushes him over the edge of notability, being an aircraft-carrier captain is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the carrier in question is Enterprise. Some things are more than the sum of their parts; while none of his various notable things done may be notable enough in and of themselves, when combined, I believe he's worthy of an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:ONEEVENT. The incident which led to his sacking could, and should, be covered in the article on the ship. A lot of the above keep votes appear to be variants of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT (in that the commander of a large warship is deemed notable in isolation of any assessment of available sources) and aren't based on any policy. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The deletionists seem to be pushing things too far here - such that it's become a knee-jerk reaction to try and delete *anything* that's in the news. If you look at what BLP1E actually says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." (My emphasis) But he hasn't only been covered in the context of this incident. The article already cites coverage from before the video incident made the news. Probably a lot more could be dug up too. I'm sure there was coverage when he took command of the Enterprise. Also, he wasn't a "low-profile individual" even before the scandal broke. He was the commander of one of the most famous ships in the world - with a crew of over five thousand - more than a lot of towns. BLP1E was designed so that obscure people who happened to have a brief brush with fame wouldn't have articles written about them that would then have to be closely monitored (so as not to violate BLP standards) long after they faded back into obscurity. But that clearly is not the case here. We have an already noteworthy person who become more notorious as a result of this incident. -Helvetica (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The circumstances of Captain Honors's firing have made international headlines. He's now a highly notable U.S. Navy officer. -- Evans1982 (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - He will be world famous--and/or infamous--for a long time. Also, setting aside this one CO's appearances in the news, I'm surprised there isn't a Wikipedia article about every commanding officer of the Enterprise. The office alone makes individual articles entirely worthy. -- AmbassadorShras (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What independent, in-depth sources exist to support articles on commanders of this ship? (which is but one of the 12 aircraft carriers the US Navy currently operates). Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - passing notability only due to single event per WP:BLP1E and fails the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N. The details surrounding his sacking could be included in the article on the USS Enterprise but that is it. Also I question whether a lot of the sources used in the article are reliable as well. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person is notable. --rogerd (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Merge - CAPT Honors fails WP:MILPEOPLE and only acheives WP:N per one event, therefore I agree with previously made arguments that relevant information should be placed in the article regarding his command; See WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps we should also look at CAPT Holly Graf --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable for only one event, per WP:BLP1E. Also fails criteria laid out by WP:SOLDIER. Hekerui (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: classis lack of lasting notability per WP:NOTNEWS, as well as WP:BLP1E and WP:MILPEOPLE. I might be willing to consider Edison's proposal to move and convert to an article about the event as well, if consensus leans toward keeping; but I think it's merely worth a few sentances on the Enterprise article, under the "history" section.
Also have to ask: what the heck does this guy have to do with DADT? The videos made were long before the repeal of DADT got traction, and the relief seems to stem from the unprofessional nature of the horsing around, rather than anything about homosexuality (media speculation and hyperbole to the contrary). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Every Medal of Honor-winner gets his own article, no matter how insignificant his life was beyond winning that one medal (don't flip out, people, you know how I mean that...) That guy is certainly more significant than many other military officers whose significance is largely undisputed. -- Imladros (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will assume good faith for a moment and ask if you simply misread the article? Owen Honors is not an MoH recipient. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of that post understands Honors is not a MoH recipient; if Honors was a MoH recipient then he would automatically have a Wikipedia article and we would not all be here talking about if Honors deserve an article. Granite07 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Without the current video mess, he does not pass either the WP:GNG or the WP:SOLDIER fallback. With the mess, we're just at a simple WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E scenario. The calls to keep are largely without merit, resting on WP:OTHERSTUFF name-drops, "keep its in the news!", and such. An IP editor brings up WP:SOLDIER criteria #6, but that specifically notes "in combat". Tarc (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SOLDIER is nothing more than guff, actually. It's a project essay that even the project refused to try to promomte as a guideline. I hope the closing admin recognises that. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, but it doesn't alter the argument. Those specialized, sub-guides are there to provide cover for those that would otherwise miss the GNG; like how we have articles for people who played 1 game of baseball in 1899 even though no reliable source mentions them, because they qualify via WP:ATHLETE. Honors passes neither the general nor the specific, as unused/unwanted as it may be. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, Mkativerata's point does alter the argument. The difference between WP:ATHLETE and WP:SOLDIER is that one is a specialized sub-guideline that has the support of community consensus whereas the other is only an essay that does not have the same support. The distinction of having community consensus or not is an important one. The fact that SOLDIER was not promoted to guideline-status suggests that editors find it to be flawed in some manner. Location (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it does not alter it one bit, and you are spectacularly missing the point. If WP:SOLDIER never existed then we would still be left with what is IMO a failure of the general notability guidelines. If the essay were better-received by the community then it could possibly serve as an extra safety net to sustain otherwise GNG-failures like Owen Honors, jut as Athlete sustains athletic GNG-failures or WP:PORNBIO props up T&A tartlets who would otherwise be non-article worthy. If it is largely rejected, fine, then take it out of the conversation. But that doesn't boost his notability otherwise one bit. Tarc (talk)
            • And you are spectacularly missing my point, Pot. You attempted to justify WP:SOLDIER's relationship to WP:GNG as a "fallback" when, as an essay, it has no relationship to it as such. It alters the argument in that many editors are using it to recommend "delete" when it actually has no weight as an official guideline. Incidentally, the guy who initially pointed this out to you is on your side of the !vote. Location (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's avoid name-calling. Location, you're harping on the wrong point. Whether MILPEOPLE or not is a valid notability guide is irrelevant, because it's not the only cited argument for keeping or deleting. Whether MILPEOPLE is met or not is irrelevant because GNG, BIO, and BLP1E aren't met either, and even if MILPEOPLE was a guideline, it couldn't override those other three considerations. And in any case, there are people using MILPEOPLE as a keep justification anyway, so your argument about having no official weight works against you in invalidating thier keep !votes. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Who is "harping" on which point, which point is irrelevant, and who is escalating incivility in a brash manner here is a matter of POV. Given how commonly the essay is being used on both sides of the aisle by new and experienced editors, I do not think it is irrelevant to support the point that it carries no, or at least shouldn't carry any, official weight. What is clear to me is that editors and closing admins do give at least some weight to secondary notability guidelines (or what they perceive to be a SNG, in this case). If this were not the case, there would be little need for us to post more than "fails GNG" or "passes GNG". Although our assessment differs, I think we are in agreement that the subject's notability should be determined by GNG, BIO, and BLP1E. Location (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Location, no editor in this AfD cites failing WP:MILPEOPLE as the sole reason to delete the article. At the time of the original post I assumed that it was a fallback/failsafe/2nd tier, whatever damned term you want to use, to GNG. Just as pornbio and athlete are. That assumptino is now wrong, that is fine. Honors still IMO fails to qualify for an article for other reasons, and others who have weighed in to delete have cited 1E and the GNG such as well. The now-obviously irrelvance of MILPEOPLE does not impact any deletion call in this AfD. Clear? Tarc (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.192.213 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
85.1.192.213 has made no other post ever. I forget the template that automatically says that. Dream Focus 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean {{spa}}?? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, not much I expect, in 2002 he was commander of VFA-211 on the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, according to Stage, Jeff. "Cicero High, Naval Academy Grad Flies Into Combat Zone: Owen P. Honors is Commander of an F-14 Tomcat Squadron." Syracuse Post-Standard March 21, 2002. on LEXIS NEXIS. It's got additional info about his education, awards, family and classmates. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample news coverage of the guy. This is a notable event, since how often, if ever, has this sort of thing happened before? The captain of an aircraft carrier gets fired for offensive videos shown to the crew. Dream Focus 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has significant coverage in reputable third party sources. Being an aircraft carrier commander may not be notable. However, being the cause of a major scandal on the largest aircraft carrier in the world would be notable. This event has received substantial coverage for the media. He received little coverage before, but still did receive some. He qualifies under WP:BLP1E. Alpha Quadrant talk 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does meet requirement for WP:MILPEOPLE line 6 by reason was command of capital ship. Furthermore the recent events will make defenitive a change in military guideline concerning media and off duty time aboard ships and on bases around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.205.10 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    #6 specifies that commanding a capital ship during combat confers notability. I don't see evidence that the ship was under fire during this officer's command. Does anyone know for sure?   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At last count there are currently over 3090 articles discussing this man and the related story. This will be discussed continually in relation to DADT, commanding officers, etc for some time to come. --Bouspret (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BLP1E clearly provides for inclusion of articles "if the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial[...] Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Clearly the coverage of Capt. Honors in the news is highly persistent, and will likely be so for quite some time. -- RoninBK T C 05:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's gotten over 30 thousand hits in its first few days of existence! [41] This is what people come to Wikipedia to see. To seek out information that interest them. Dream Focus 07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Forgive my poor editing skills :) Not only does the ever-increasing coverage make Captain Honors noteworthy, but the level of support shown by former shipmates has been almost unwaveringly positive. That, along with the growing questioning of the timing of this punishment, years after the videos were made and addressed by superiors but immediately after they were made public in the same news cycle as DADT, and considering that the admirals who presided over the original complaint judged it not worthy of official sanction at the time and later gave him command [1], is adding to the growing perception that this is entirely political in nature (ya think?). When you combine this event with the firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal for similarly indiscreet/embarrassing speech it connects into the whole cultural phenomenon of political correctness and its pervasiveness even in places it might arguably not belong like the military during war ( Honors really should be linked to [2] ), which then connects into the Ground Zero Mosque, Islam and the whole discussion of imbalance when again, it comes to political correctness and tolerance... this all makes the Captain more than just a one-trick-pony, even if he is one tiny gear in a very big clock. And, in the larger sense of Wikipedia as a whole, I came here looking for info on Captain Honors. I wanted his career info to cite for a comment on another site, and I automatically Googled "owen honors wiki" in order to get his Wikipedia page as the first hit. I always add "wiki" to my search terms to get here, for the (mostly) reliably comprehensive compilation of information and the links to outside sources. Isn't that what we want, what the ideal is, for Wikipedia to get as close as it can to being the mythical Storehouse Of All Human Knowledge, to be the go-to guy for information? Our policies should default to a position of inclusion of articles by definition. If the noteworthiness policy disqualifies Captain Honors but not Puck from The Real World, then that policy needs some tweaking. Thanks! Cowcharge (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and rename - Per WP:EVENT. The scandal is notable, not the person involved. That is what the article should be about. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has become a dumping ground for WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP violations and has been reported at ORN [42]. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the spirit of WP:SOLDIER. An important command involved in an important event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOLDIER is apparently a largely discarded essay. Do you have an opinion as to whether this person meets the WP:GNG ? Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I get annoyed and discouraged people wanting to delete pages. If thousands of people want to read some basic encyclopedic information about a person, why not have a short article.

I wanted to read about Owen Honors, a navy commander who was in the news for controversial comedic videos. His page also is up for deletion.

I certainly see no harm in including people of minor note or short lived fame in the wiki. As far as I can tell it's a boon to human knowledge.

Imagine someone doing a report on gays in the military 20 years from now. Wouldn't it be nice if they could find the contemporaneous issues like Honors? Or Willams and the power of memes in the early internet?

Let's mellow wiki editors. Work instead on expanding and improving.

Overzealous deletion might keep people from contributing, and wiki already suffers with problems of elitism. (I am certainly not saying let poor submitters or poor articles go though, only emphasis should be on improvements not deletion.)

Lastly, if you are self righteous about any deletion, you are probably not the one who should be instigating or arguing for it. You are too personally involved. I would extend that to people who think of themselves as deleters of wiki. I recon any deleter should spend five time writing or improving articles as they do deleting. (If an article really ought not to be included, someone will come along and take care of it later.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — 66.93.220.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your entry, once we get past the slander and personal attacks against other editors, can be best summed up as a delving into WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM, which are not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whereas you can muster persuasive arguments like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:Not notable. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, for the personal attack bit. The article is useful in an encyclopedic way. I fundamentally disagree with this and a few other deletions. There must be some basic difference either in my use of encyclopedias or in how the deleters see wiki. I had the idea that wiki "content-adders/revisers"(of which I am not) followed guidelines closer to my own intuitions. I found that some article deletions that I considered erroneous (as in I did a search for information only to find the relevant article had once existed) were carried out by only a few folk. This, along with work in article creation and ease of deletion (and learning curve for wiki proficiency), leads to the rather strong claim that if you are primarily "A Deleter!" I probably disagree with you. My apologies for both the unwikiness the earlier and now this post. Wrong time, wrong place. Ya'll got to be my first. I am now reading up all this cool WP stuff which should help me when I freak next time; I still only want to be a reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Wasn't he the captain of an aircraft carrier during wartime? Wasn't that aircraft carrier used in any military activities for the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq? Also, do any of his awards/medals make him notable? Dream Focus 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the international attention (all sourced and in the article) regarding the naval investigation currently, he has been mentioned in the LA Daily News (previous jet crash) and quoted by Newsweek for an article about Russia being unhappy with an American humanitarian action in Georgia. I am neither a fan nor detractor of the subject, I simply wanted to know more about him. How many separate incidents of sourced media does he require to be notable? --71.110.65.2 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not saying that page views are an acceptable measure of notability, or that page views constitute a good argument for or against deletion. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page views have dropped by half again in the last 24 hours. No, page views do not have anything to do with enduring notability - I'm just rebutting those who've said it does.   Will Beback  talk 
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. No one outside of the Navy ever heard of him before he made his video and no one will remember him a year from now. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I think this is probably a case of WP:BLP1E, but it's a borderline case, as he did have a fairly distinguished career before the recent video controversy. However, I accept the argument that his military career wouldn't be enough to make him notable by itself; as significant a post as captain of an aircraft carrier is, we don't have articles on the rest of them unless they went on to a higher post beyond that. If we wouldn't have had an article on him before, we shouldn't have an article on him due to one event, therefore delete. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument here strikes me as rather WP:OSE, similar to the example they give: "* Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" Just because there aren't yet articles about some other aircraft carrier captains doesn't mean that there shouldn't be - as long as there are enough reliable sources to document their career - it just means they haven't been written yet. -Helvetica (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're wrong, there is an article on Y, and even a why, if you wanna get picky about it.

He meets the criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE, and this has been discussed long enough. Can someone hurry up and make their mind up already?

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

The result was no consensus. I won't bore you, it's fairly obvious on reading this which way it has to be closed. We can always discuss this again later, but this debate has failed to reach any consensus. Courcelles 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Israel

Criticism of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just noticing that the person recommending deletion made other articles one of his main arguments. So it seems relevant to note that there are BOTH a Criticism of Islam and a Criticism of Islamism article and neither has been suggested for deletion. That easily could be seen as a POV fork of Islam. Do you see this deletion as a precedent for those? Let's at least be consistent. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, you are surely aware that you are comparing a religion, a theologically inspired political movement and a sovereign state? In other words, there are no forks, and the articles are not epistemologically related. Although the scope of the later article is yet to be clearly defined, so there may be some analogies as it develops Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that wikipedia defines Israel as "a Jewish and democratic state" also makes the religious angle relevant. However, to make another argument using article comparisons, if those two criticism of Islam articles exist, plus Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Christianity articles, how can there not be an article criticizing this or any other state, assuming sufficient WP:RS? CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to say? You suggested that a deletion of this article should be a precedent for deleting articles criticising Islam and Islamism. At that rate there will be established an effective regime of censorship against any criticism of anyone and anything.
Now you are arguing that there should be articles offering criticism of any other state, and for that matter political philosophy or religion?
Aside from the controversial nature of the assumption there are "three Abrahamic religions", there should not be any impediments to articles describing valid criticism of anything, provided logical approaches and methods (criticism is a form of logic) are used; for example Criticism of MacDonalds Corporation, or Criticism of Hollywood film content, etc. The Arts has a slew of such articles under Arts criticism: Architecture criticism, Visual art criticism, Dance criticism, Film criticism, Literary criticism, Music journalism, Television criticism, and Theatre criticism. Then there are more intra-disciplinary articles such as Criticism of American foreign policy, Criticisms of Salvador Allende. Which is why I find the attempt to delete this article rather strange Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was confusing. Just making clear that using the lack of other criticism articles to excuse deleting a criticism article ridiculous, when there are criticism articles about more sensitive topics (with obviously overlap with Israel in the Criticism of Judaism case). And looking at Abrahamic religions, I see there are more than three; my error. Yeah, wikipedia for teaching me something everyday!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Criticizing Israel isn't equivalent to thinking it shouldn't exist, for God's sake. If you think there should be articles for criticism of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, et al., create them. Roscelese (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not entirely sure what god or arguing for the non-existence of Israel has to do with anything. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that it's a POV fork of Anti-Zionism, but they're not the same thing. Read WP:POVFORK - a POV fork is "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)...developed according to a particular point of view." Your claim that it is one only makes sense if you believe that any criticism of any Israeli government policy is equivalent to suggesting that Israel should not exist, which is patently ridiculous. Roscelese (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i never claimed Criticism of Israel is a POVFORK because its the same thing as Anti-zionism and i still have no idea what you're talking about regarding the non-existence of Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you sure didn't advocate for the deletion of Criticism of Israel as a POV fork of Anti-Zionism. How could anyone even imagine that you would do that?
I've voted; I'm done here. Good luck. Roscelese (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i advocated for the deletion of of Criticism of Israel as a POV fork of Anti-Zionism, but not because they are the "same thing."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is a content fork and synth, and also an unprecendented article, insofar as the same kind of article could as well be made for most countries in the world. Avaya1 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:Attack, one grows tried of political advocacy masquerading as "encyclopedic content". Any issue worthy of criticism already has its own article dealing with the specific issue at hand. Poliocretes (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The Anti-Zionism article is a mess as it includs a vast amount of material that should be in this article - the clearest examples are the 6 references to "criticism of Israel" within the AZ article. Anti-Zionism is about the ideology supporting the existence of the country, this is about the criticism the country has had to face in relation to policy decisions. This criticism is highly notable - as shown by ghits and all the facts shown on the page such as disproportionate UN criticism, PR against criticism a big political focus within Israel, innumerable WP:RS books and media articles written on the topic. The facts that other countries do not have such articles, that the article doesn't already exist, or that the article 'could' be used for advocacy are not valid arguments. WP has "Criticism of" articles for the three major Abrahamic religions - editors have worked hard and these have not become coatracks. This topic is highly notable and is needed in order to house a lot of information incorrectly placed within Anti-Zionism.Oncenawhile (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Keep To be clearer, the title, Israel, represents a country, which means a region within a sphere of influence of a government. If the government is wrong, then, criticizes the ruling party such as criticism of Israel government. If the practice of people in Israel is wrong then, criticize the practice. There is by far, no way to criticize Israel which is far more general term. Soewinhan (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soewinhan, that is incorrect - the article title uses Israel in exactly the same way as the Israel article - i.e. as the commonly accepted shorthand for State of Israel. As you will no doubt be aware, a State is defined in WP as the formal institution on which a political community is organized under a government. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re It is a state, but a state has many variations. Not only a government represents a state, but also people, culture, and so on. The title is not clear about what the article is criticizing. I will agree with Criticism Of Israel Government. For example, if you want to criticize Military Junta of Burma, you can't title criticism of Burma of course.Soewinhan (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Concur with Oncenawhile. On the other hand, I do see the point of the "oppose" editors, namely that this is a POV fork of the Israel article (I'm not why someone suggested that it is a POV fork of Zionism .. they are not even close). And in an ideal world, perhaps they would be merged. But the Israel article contains no mention whatsoever of alleged discrimination, racism, apartheid, or human rights issues. None. Yet criticism of Israel is a very, very widely discussed topic - both by primary sources (critics) and secondary sources (Dershowitz, et al). So the absence of "criticism" material in the Israel article is a significant oversight. That oversight, as a practical matter, cannot and will not be remedied by a merger. Therefore, an independent "criticism of" article is appropriate. The existing articles Anti-Zionism and Human rights in Israel are not replacments for a broader "Criticism of .." article, because they focus on narrower sub-topics. --Noleander (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - essentially Criticism has been around since ancient times as a discipline at one time taught as Rhetoric. I took the liberty of moving the article to International criticism of Israel, lest it require disambiguation from prophetic criticism of Israel provided in Tanakh. I'm not sure why Anti-Zionism got mentioned because that pre-existed the state of Israel. However, anyone who has access to the mass media, and Internet (a must for editing Wikipedia!) would be aware that criticism of Israel, and other states around the globe, is a fact. That no articles have been written for other states is perhaps indicative of the reception such articles are likely to receive from editors representing the states being criticised. I'll say nothing about criticism of Saudi Arabia, but criticism of Sudan has been so obvious, that to miss it would be inexcusable. South Africa has been criticised before and after the end of South Africa under apartheid, while Germany certainly had its share of criticism last century, and this, if only for its economic policy during the global economic crisis. Its just that these issues have not been brought together under same rubric because criticism of Israel has been so wide-ranging, and directed from so many different quarters. One can say that there is even an Israel-bashing industry.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As per above, I am strongly supporting keep, and I agree with Koakhtzvigad's improvements to the article. However, I was just checking the 'what links here' to the article, and noticed that on 23:34, 29 December 2006 a previous version of the "Criticism of Israel" article was deleted by Mel Etitis (see [45]), but no further information is available and I cannot seem to find a copy of the deleted article or the AfD discussion. Can anyone provide further info here, as might be useful to ensure that when this discussion is closed, it really is closed. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a very clear case of a POV fork, created following this discussion where a majority of editors felt that a similarly-titled article section was inappropriate. There does not appear to be any purpose to this article other than to give a different slant on information that is either contained or could be contained in the other two articles on the same topic (if you don't feel that this is the case, then please give an example of the type of information you think needs this article to exist). On top of which, the article would be an obvious drama-magnet. Keep votes here seem to be based simply on WP:ITEXISTS or on the argument that related articles are not good enough but for some reason can't be improved, which seems tanatamount to saying that you want to a new space to push a POV that has not so far prevailed elsewhere. Sincerely hope that a closing admin will see through this.--FormerIP (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is based on strength of arguments, not number of editors. Your comment looks more like gaming than logic - with respect to your challenge in brackets, many examples are cited above - as a dissenting editor you are welcome to provide specific examples of how the core info in the article could fit in to the other articles you reference. Your disparaging of the keep votes is absurd in light of the detailed commentary from supporting editors above - all the arguments have been set out clearly and are based on WP:N, and you have not attempted to counter any of them (nor have any of the other opposing editors). Your reference to the parallel discussion is helpful - there is consensus from both sides in that discussion that the topic is notable - the only (and ongoing) debate is with respect to how much focus it warrants within the main Israel article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daily care: Yes, you have a good point there - there are already three articles in WP that do describe the vast majority of criticism: Human rights in Israel, Israel and the apartheid analogy, and Anti-Zionism. But there are a few reasons why a dedicated article would be useful to readers: (1) the Israel article has no mention whatsoever of those topics; (2) there is no "criticism of Israel" category to link those various articles; and (3) there are several other topics that are not yet present in any article in WP, such as (a) Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism; (b) Criticism of Israel, manifested as comparisons with Nazi Germany; (c) Criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitism (outside of New Antisemitism context); and (d) Criminalization of criticism of Israel. What article would those four topics go into in WP, if not this article? I supposes they could all be shoe-horned into the New Antisemitism article, but that seems like a stretch. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, there are at least 15 articles which contain information relevant to this page: (1) Anti-Zionism; (2) Human rights in Israel and Human rights in Israel#Human rights record in the Occupied Territories; (3) Relationships between Jewish religious movements; (4) Israeli Settlements; (5) Economy of the Palestinian territories; (6) Israeli-occupied territories; (7) Palestinian refugees; (8) New antisemitism; (9) Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel; (10) Public diplomacy (Israel); (11) Loyalty oath#Israel; (12) Israel and the apartheid analogy; (13) International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict; (14) Boycotts of Israel; (15) Disinvestment from Israel
There is no article which connects them despite the fact that the sources provided prove the notability of the Criticism of Israel beyond any doubt (no editor has questioned or provided a challenge to the sources). Therefore there is no article which states that Criticism of Israel is a highly important topic, important to academics, the government of Israel and the people of Israel - as shown in the WP:RS, and not disputed by any editor. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think creating the category to link those pages together sounds like a fair idea. As to Noleander's specific questions, I'd say that a) belongs to Antisemitism, b) may not be notable, c) is the same thing as a), and d) is not notable or (if this is the case in Israel) goes to Human rights in Israel. User Oncenawhile doesn't need to reply to every comment in this discussion (see WP:BLUDGEON) as editors' arguments can speak for themselves. (don't take this in an unkind way, I also occasionally have that tendency) --Dailycare (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Move to Criticism of Israel Government No country has article about criticism. People need to see Israel and Zionism are different. I mean Israel does not represent Zionism nor any other country does. If the practice is wrong, criticize the practice rather than a country. If the government is wrong, then, criticize the ruling party. Please note that by titling this article as criticism of Israel, you are criticizing not only a particular practice, religion, government or race, you are criticizing everything about Israel as a whole. Soewinhan (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No country has article about criticism" - see discussion above, this is not a valid argument, and even if it was, WP:RS suggest Criticism of Israel is highly notable compared to other countries
  • Re. I am not objecting notablility of criticism. I am objecting the general term, using only Israel to criticize just a ruling body of a country. You are criticizing a government of a country, and not entire country. So, the term is not definite. Soewinhan (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People need to see Israel and Zionism are different" - agree, hence Anti-Zionism is just a subsection in this topic
  • Re the rest of your comment, see above - the article title uses Israel in exactly the same way as the Israel article - i.e. as the commonly accepted shorthand for State of Israel, and a State is defined in WP as the formal institution on which a political community is organized under a government. The 20 million ghits referred to above confirm this is standard practice. More importantly though - no one is criticising anyone - the article describes the criticism as a phenomenon and no more. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. See above. You need to take note that the term State (Israel) is vaguely defined as ruling body. For example, if you want to criticize Burma junta, you can't title Criticism of Burma ,of course. Soewinhan (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 million ghits (now 2.5m if you hit the findsources button) would disagree with you. But since consensus is about compromise, perhaps your suggestion above is the right thing to do, but we would need a redirect from "Criticism of Israel". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Soewinhan (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soewinhan: I agree that Criticism of Israeli government would be an okay title. It is certainly better than the current International criticism of Israel, because many significant critics are within Israel (peace movement, etc). Another variant would be Criticism of Israeli government policies, but maybe that is too verbose? --Noleander (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander, Israelis criticize the Israeli Government for all the same reasons that any other citizens criticize their governments, but by far the greatest volume of criticism is international. However, since Israel is also a name of a people, and they are also criticized, it seems to me that there is no need to add government, but simply reflect this in the article. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Every nation state should have such an article. It could use some cleanup, but a noteworthy topic that can't be adequately covered just as a small section of the larger article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep With so much criticism of Israel appearing in so many articles it is very useful to have a page which organizes it all in one place. I see it like a disambiguation page in that it can and would be used to help people find all the other less formal criticism of Israel pages like, the 15 pages that Oncenawhile listed just above the relisting line.

Also, I agree the title should change to simply 'Criticism of the Israeli government'. Passionless (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a legal sense Israel has the same identity as Wikipedia, Federal Reserve, Jehovah's Witnesses (as a corporation), or any number of public personalities which at national levels are represented by the statutory corporation. By allowing the article, Wikipedia therefore seeks to allow a public setting out of the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) in any such process

That so few such articles exist in Wikipedia may suggest that although it is open for editing by anyone, the available material is not open for anyone to read, being subject to Wikipedia's own censorship Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy: Those are good points you raise. The essential problem is that the article Israel does not (and - as a practical matter - will never) include a summary of the vast amount of criticism (human rights, etc). Becuse the Israel article will not contain such a summary (there was one once, but it was deleted from the article) the second-best alternative is a stand-alone article such as Criticism of Israel. You mention the possibility of creating a new category "Criticsm of Israel", and that is not a bad idea. However, there is a large amount of textual material on the topic, such as Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, Comparisons with Nazi Germany, and Criminalization of criticism of Israel. If Criticism of Israel were deleted, into which article should that material go? And (whatever the answer is) is that best for the readers? --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case helpful, attached[46] is a list of the currently existing articles entitled "Criticism of". Given the high notability (as set out with sources above and not challenged), "Criticism of the Israeli Government" would not be out of place amongst the existing precedents.Oncenawhile (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor usage note: There are three similar terms, and their usage (ranked form most-used to least-used) is: (1) Israeli govenment; (2) Government of Israel; and (3) Israel government. I think the latter is discouraged because Israel is primarily a noun, not an adjective. (PS: I would not object to the rename, as detailed above in the identical rename proposal by user Soewinhan). --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. International criticism of Israel is not the same as Anti-Zionism. Biophys (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Noindex/Nonsearchable until issues are resolved Really, something of the sort needs to exist, and admittedly, the deleting of an article with this name will make both Wikipedia and Israel look really bad (the media will eat this up.) That being said, the article is a mess, there are allegations of large sections being word for word copies (made at the undeletion request page,) and the article suffers from NPOV and organizational issues as well. Getting rid of this is bad, leaving it as is is just as bad. What I say we do find a couple of neutral editors with track records in good content creation, have them fix this mess, and in the mean time, noindex this so that it's not the top hit in a google search (as this clearly isn't up to Wikipedia standards.) Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sven: I think the "undeletion request page" you are talking about is here. That discussion is about a 2006 version of an article with the identical name "Criticism of Israel". That previous version was, apparently, a duplicate of some other article, and so it was deleted. The comment about "large sections being word for word copies" is referring to that 2006 article, not to the current article being discussed here. I don't believe this article has any duplicate text. That said, I agree with your suggestion that this article would benefit from improvements to its content and organization. --Noleander (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is less than a month old, of course it needs alot more work done, but I'm sure the article will grow quickly with all the interest in it. Passionless (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article "will grow quickly" as POV-pushers from both sides descend, and any reader who stumbles upon it at moment X is likely to find it in some jumbled state with unbalanced WP:POV for one side or the other and content FORKs galore, since most sections of this article cover material already addressed at length in other places. This article should be dis-aggregated to existing articles; the SYNTH POINT of creating one humongous "criticism of israel" is to point fingers at how much criticism exists, not a valid Wikipedia goal. To clarify, I am NOT saying that is the goal of any people voting "Keep" here, but I fear that SYNTH will be the result of keeping this article. betsythedevine (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Betsy: You write "most sections of this article cover material already addressed at length in other places". However, there is quite a bit of material in this article this is not covered in any other WP article, such as: Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, Comparisons with Nazi Germany, and Criminalization of criticism of Israel. If this article were deleted, which articles would that material go into? And would spreading the material across several articles be better than a centralized article that follows the WP:Summary style guideline? And how can SYNTH be a concern, when notable authors such as Dershowitz explicitly discuss all of these topics in their widely read books on Israel? --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Anti-Semitism and Human_rights_in_Israel articles seem a much better home for the material you mention instead of creating a FORK with some stuff there and other stuff elsewhere. I would also urge interested editors to read the very thoughtful essay WP:CRITICISM. It is easy to find reputable authors writing in WP:RS who are strongly arguing for some particular POV, for or against Israel, so just about any laundry list can probably be found out in the wild. Just from my experience here in Wikipedia, it seems to me this article will be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, an embarrassment to the project, and a source of endless ANIs, SPIs, and other trainwreck wasting of the admins' time. Anyway, I respect your different opinion Noleander and I am grateful for your WP:CIVIL expression of your arguments too. betsythedevine (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Betsy,
  • In the WP:CRITICISM essay, there is an example provided relating to the 2008 Summer Olympics - this situation is a good corollary of that (albeit more extreme since no mention in the main article - see Noleander's comment at 02:02 / 2 January 2011 above), and therefore this article is required according to the essay
  • With respect to your use of the emotive word "embarrassment", the point that Sven Manguard makes above about this situation being interpreted as a whitewash poses a much bigger risk of embarrassment to us all
  • I would appreciate your views as to where explanation of the overall phenomenon of Criticism of the Israeli government would go without this article (a topic highly notable and important to academics / Israel Government / Israelis, as shown in the WP:RS, and not disputed by any editor)
Thanks also to you for your consistently WP:CIVIL and nice tone. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick reply since I've already said so much -- I'd prefer a list. By the way, I came here via a link from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal_conspiracy_theories_involving_Israel, in my opinion a POV problem of opposite sign--I'm also voting to delete that one. Funny, I see myself as an inclusionist more than a deletionist but what I like to see included is more information and less argumentation. betsythedevine (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and create articles on criticism of all sovereign nations. --Neptune 123 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just trying to think how that would work...wouldn't it be more manageable to have separate articles on specific policies being criticized? Such as "US policy on immigration", "US policy on nuclear weapons", "US policy on capital punishment", etc. with each article explaining the policy and also including criticism of the policy. (I use the US not Israel as an example because I know more about my own country's policies.) If you do the thought experiment of cobbling together the criticism sections of all the very different criticisms people make of US policy in just those 3 very different areas, it seems to me the result will be a less encyclopedic and less useful article. By analogy, the criticisms people make of Israel's policy on settlements are very different from the criticisms people make that Israel should not have been created in the first place. Surely it would be more informative to put the former criticisms into an article that discusses Israel's policy on settlements, and the latter into a different article that discusses the reasons Israel was created where and when it was. betsythedevine (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neptune is the second person in this AfD that has suggested that it is a good idea for all countries to have a "Criticism of.." article in WP. That particular suggestion is interesting, but should probably be discussed at a more prominent location (village pump?) than this AfD. Personally, I see some merit to it, because (1) WP's indexing/searching capabilities are very limited, and "Criticism of" articles that follow WP:summary style can help readers navigate; (2) Although categories and lists could provide a similar service, they do not provide for textual explanation, detail, or context; and (3) the main country articles should contain an overview of the criticisms, but instead tend to be puff pieces that read like Chamber of commerce brochures. For those reasons, Neptune's suggestion is sensible. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is Category:Israel and Category:Politics_of_Israel one of which - whatever happens with this article - probably needs a "Criticism of Israel" subcategory for all criticism, external and internal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm looking forwards to Criticisms of Saudi Arabia and Criticisms of Syria. I might decide they're all cruft and vote to delete them all. Not for the moment, though. Templar98 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for the creation of criticism pages for other nations, the case of a criticism of Israel page is akin to pages such as Common misunderstandings of genetics and Objections to evolution. These pages were created, and kept, because of the need for a page solely devoted to it. While the average scientific theory, such as gravity, may have objections/criticism the extent is not great enough to warrant a seperate page, though certain theories, like evolution do garner enough criticism to warrant a seperate page for criticism. As mentioned by Oncenawhile previously, criticism of Israel recieves a massively amount of ghits compared to similar searches of other nations. The extent of criticism of Israel certainly warrants its own page, while most other nations criticisms are either much smaller, that the page would be a stub, or a majority deals with one specific area, like the US and Criticism of American foreign policy. Israel has a large number of pages on specific criticisms of it, and does require a page to link them together in the same way that Objections to evolution is mostly just a collection of summaries of pages which criticize evolution. Passionless (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just so no one retails with this, I am not saying that the criticism of Israel article should exist because these others do, I'm just saying this article has the same function as these others. Passionless (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Break and Reslist

We are nowhere close to a consensus on this as far as I can see, so I'm breaking and relisting. Let's see if we can come to a conclusion this go around.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I feel that this article is very warranted, given the amount of controversy surrounding Israel. There is absolutley no good reason why an article of this quality should simply be deleted.--Metalhead94 T C 14:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—The article as it stands has a lot of problems to resolve before it reaches a satisfactory standard, but I think it is a valid topic that can be maintained separately from Anti-Zionism. The lack of existence of comparable articles is no reason to delete this article; it is a reason to create those other articles. Every country has some dirty laundry that needs airing, including those opposed to Israel. See also Category:Criticisms.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Put individual criticisms into articles where they are in context, so that for example arguments against Israel's settlement policies are in context with Israel's position supporting those policies. Create a list article Controversies about Israel to link to those criticism sections. Note that a list article can have introductory material to clarify what is in or out of it, but I believe doing it this way will create less of a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also, we will avoid future problems of WP:FORK. Note, I changed my !vote, which was "Delete" above. betsythedevine (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep-for my reasons given just above the relist line, and the numerous other arguments in favour of the article given by others. Passionless (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for Admin to Close Debate This debate has run out of steam. I'm not sure there are any meaningful new arguments either way - there has been substantive debate, with 22 editors presenting disparate opinions supported by policy:
    • First listing votes: 5 keep vs 6 delete/redirect
    • Second listing new votes: 8 keep/rename vs 1 delete (since changed to merge)
    • Third listing new votes: (so far): 2 keep
This is as close to consensus as we can ever hope to achieve on such a sensitive topic. And anyway, a quick look at the the other AfD discussions for "Criticism of" articles here[47] shows whilst many such discussions have a mix of votes, no such "Criticism of" article has ever been deleted if it was well sourced with notable substance which could not all fit in the parent article (in this case Israel).
A second relisting is wasting time, and more importantly the AfD tag on the article is discouraging improvements - the article was only 10 days old when it was nominated for deletion and needs more work.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second the motion to close and keep. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Keats is notable. John Keats in Popular Culture is only notable if there are sources that discuss John Keats in popular culture. The only offered source to this effect has been rebutted and the keep votes are mostly assertions and opinions rather then evidence based opinions founded on specific policies. Obvious if there are specific sources this can be revisited on my talk page Spartaz Humbug! 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Keats in Popular Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A random grouping of references to (or maybe to) Keats in others' works ranging from the famous to various high school poetry reads. C'mon we're an encyclopedia not a concordance nor a citation index. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Needs improving but useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it only includes those presentations that are in works sufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles. That's a very small subset of "everything". Objecting to an article because inappropriate content might be added is reason to delete the entire encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO, unless sources can be cited that expressly treat the topic of the article. (Though it's not per se a reason for deletion, the article also seems to make no distinction between specifically popular-culture references and other sorts of references.) Deor (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep INFO does not affect this at all; the sources for the relevances are in the original articles --and, in many cases, are explicit in the quotations. Nothing more in the way of references are needed. As for the title, that can be adjusted. to John Keats in literature, film, music, etc., but popular culture is a useful abbreviation that seems perfectly well understood. Cf. the contents of the book at [48]. Any individual items that are inappropriate can be removed by editing, if necessary after a talk p. discussion. I removed one obvious one just now, for example. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the table of contents of the book you cited, DGG, I see the words "popular culture" in the title of an article that appears to be about Keats's drawing on popular tradition in his "Eve of St. Mark" fragment, not about appearances of Keats himself in subsequent popular culture. None of the other studies gathered therein seem relevant to this discussion, either. What exactly did you intend to convey by linking to that book? Deor (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete. Read deletion policy: whatever can be solved by editing is never a reason to delete. --Cyclopiatalk 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn - Please don't ever bother yourself linking me to worthless essays. If the content isn't soon cited there will only be a couple of lines left. Supporting uncited content is detrimental to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our deletion policy is not a "worthless essay"; read it and read it well, please. --Cyclopiatalk 00:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, thats policy and nothing there supports the keeping of any uncited trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc LaSalle

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

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Again, we have the problem of weak and policy-free arguments. AfD is not a vote; users commenting must provide a cogent argument with policy cites if they expect their statement to have any weight. The "keep" comments in one case agree that "it's against all policy and the AfD nomination is entirely correct" and in the other, as commented, provide no real argument. The "delete" comments follow a similar pattern, but despite a lack of links, at least make comments along the lines of WP:NOT#STATS. The single "redirect" comment again provides no detailed rationale. I implore all users at this AfD to, in the future, provide some semblance of a policy-based, cogent rationale with their comment. Ironholds (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Identity Parade guests on Never Mind the Buzzcocks

List of Identity Parade guests on Never Mind the Buzzcocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is complete FANCRUFT and an excessive listing of statistics. —Half Price 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was serious, but I was in a very light hearted mood that night (having just watched Eric and Ernie). That's why I bracketed my !vote with the admission that it was quite against process. I genuinely do think it should stay but I quite understand why it can't and won't. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First and (so far) only edit from this IP. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that relevant? When I visited (and enjoyed) the article, there was a banner at the top saying "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page", so I did.
I've actually made a few rare edits in the past, but I'm not technical enough to know why my IP address shows up differently on different occasions. As I said, though, I'm not sure why that would be relevant.86.144.190.110 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's sometimes the case that edits to AfD as first-time edits or those from very new accounts are simply people who have been recruited to come and 'vote', thinking that AfD is decided on a majority basis. You're obviously not a new editor (it took me ages to get the formatting of talk page replies with :: etc!) so I'm sure this doesn't apply here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 works by Salvador Dalí. No indication that this has any independent notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omelette About to Be Irreparably Crushed by Hands

Omelette About to Be Irreparably Crushed by Hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this article last spring as a stub. However, I was a newer editor, and I didn't understand the notability guideline's as well as I do now. I am beginning to have doubts about whether this individual drawing is notable enough for its own article. There are very few, if any sources which could be used to expand it, so it would be highly unlikely for it to ever be anything more than a one-sentence stub. I would like other editors' input on this. Thanks. —focus 04:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and since nom is also the author. Dali himself is notable, but this particular drawing does not seem to be. YardsGreen (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G7 (author requesting deletion). As far as I can tell, there is no time limit on speedy deletion, and while this page has been edited by two other editors, none of those edits added or removed substantive content. Absent that, I still say delete as I find no independent notability for this subject. In either case, I have no prejudice against recreating as a redirect to List of works by Salvador Dalí. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a notable work by a notable artist and its the only paperwork by Dali on wikipedia. Bottom line - it's notable and valuable to the project. It's a working sketch, and is reproduced in various books on Dali's oeuvre...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the only paperwork by Dali in Wikipedia because I randomly decided to create this article and not one for a different sketch. I think this was listed at WP:RA actually. But that doesn't make it notable. Focus (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying I own it; that's why I took this to AfD in the first place. But the reasons you've provided above don't explain why this drawing, and not any other random drawing, is notable enough for an article. If you could provide even one source which could be used to expand this article (not just a list of his works), that would be a different story. Also, I'll note that you have supported this twice, and so your second 'strong support' is not valid. Focus (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As someone who works almost only on visual articles, I would be dismayed if any article on a work by a (it kills me to say this as I do not generally like Dali at all) major artist would be deletable. I worry about precedent, not knowing enough to know if a judgement on a single ADF becomes law. For what its worth the drawing is useless. Ceoil 00:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. Per WP:GNG, it is not necessary that an article contain references to reliable sources; those sources must merely exist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failure-oblivious computing

Advanced search for: 
"Failure-oblivious computing"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
Failure-oblivious computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Declined WP:PROD. PROD was removed several months ago, yet no attempt was ever made to fix the problems identified. Original PROD reasoning was "No sources or other evidence of notability." Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep: AfD is not a cleanup tag. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google Books search reveals enough sources to establish notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It needs to be noted that the "book" with this title found by a Google Books search is a Wikipedia mirror. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, would that mean we still have no sources? I realize that AFD is not cleanup. This has been an unsourced stub for four and a half years and has no incoming links. I am not proposing that it be cleaned up, I am proposing it be deleted. The dearth of sources and the lack of interest in fixing it would tend to indicate that this is not a notable concept. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of computing jargon. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it means that you clearly haven't used Google Books yourself. There are more books that come up in a Google Books search than just "the book with this title". There are, for starters, two sets of conference proceedings (MMM-ACNS 2007 and ICA3PP 2009) with papers that build upon, and themselves cite, Rinard's work on failure-oblivious computing.

        This begs the question "Why?". Why didn't you look at what Google Books brings up? It's not exactly hard to do, and it takes less time than it took to make the edit that I'm replying to here. You'd have seen for yourself that Phil Bridger was talking about one book out of many. Why did you take the zero-effort route? That's not what I'd expect from you.

        The lack of interest in fixing things is endemic, by the way. It's not even confined to computing subjects — where, as noted, our coverage is nowhere near as good as it has traditionally been thought to be by observers. One could posit many reasons for it, but none are relevant to a deletion discussion of this article; nor are they rationales for deletion or evidence of anything except that Wikipedia writers don't write. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The notability is not solidified by the sources indicated. --Stormbay (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was pointed out in October 2010 when this was at Proposed Deletion that the sources supplied are not necessarily the sole sources that exist, and it has already been pointed out again, above, here. Please try to address current arguments, rather than resetting the discussion to zero. This is supposed to be a discussion, and we are expected to read it before joining in. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into fault tolerance or fault-tolerant system. The concept is notable enough to be mentioned but not notable enough to warrant its own article. It should be described in one of the two articles cited – unfortunately, they are very poor in quality. Nageh (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, sources exist (as the people who expended the effort to look for them found) discussing this within the umbrella topic of self-healing software systems or software self-healing. Since we don't have that yet, our coverage of computing subjects being superficial and poor here just as elsewhere, we cannot merge yet. So we keep, since this is valid content under a valid sub-topic title with a useful cited source. There's no sense in throwing this away. It's content that can be built upon. And our coverage of computing certainly needs building. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOEFFORT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Numerous sources show it's a notable computing concept. Deleting obscure but encyclopedic stuff is hardly a way to encourage people with special knowledge to edit wikipedia. walk victor falk talk 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perfect example if what is wrong with afd. Some people do a couple of google searches and cnoclude based on that that the topic is notable. Policies are slung around, a mild personal attack is made on the nominator, and the article.... still sucks balls and hasn't been edited a single time in the 16 days since being nominated, and hasn't been edited in any substantive way since the PROD was declined three months ago There actually hasn't been a substantive edit that actually improved this article in any meaningful way since it was created nearly six years ago. Then :[50] Now [51] If it is so obvious to all of you how easy it would be to fix the article how come nobody is willing to do it? If it can be fixed, fix it and I'll happily concede the point. I suppose it's easier to say I'm a lazy ignoramus because I'm not a computer geek. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one has said that, of course, and you are making a straw man argument. Now what is lazy, however, is the bad attitude, which I wouldn't have expected to come from you, that it's somehow Somebody Else's Problem to do this fixing that you want done. So an article isn't perfect yet. Perfection ab initio is not required, and writing an encyclopaedia is the work of years and decades, not 16 days, or even three months. If one wants something done, one mustn't do nothing and then whinge about the fact that no-one does anything. That, after all, clearly defines onesself, the whinger, as part of the very problem of people who do nothing. One must, rather, be bold and do it. That's what Wikipedia:Be bold has always been about.

      This isn't what's bad about AFD. This is what's bad about expecting other people to do the writing and abusing AFD as a club, when that doesn't happen to one's satisfaction and volunteer editors don't jump when one shouts "frog!". What you've really exemplified, and quite badly, is what's wrong with some people's approach to a collaborative, long-term, writing project. Demanding that someone else make this better or I, whilst doing nothing myself, will try to tear down what other people have made so far is very wrong, and not only not the way that we intend to write things here, but also not the way that, over the past decade, most of our content has been written in practice. Go and look at the incremental evolution of the banana article over 9 years, from a 1 sentence stub with a single source to what it is now. Go and look at how long it took North Asia, an entire region of the planet, to expand.

      Live with the fact that we're not finished yet, don't abuse deletion nominations as a way to whip writers into writing to your personal timetable, and don't decry a lack of effort whilst being the very no effort problem that you decry. Uncle G (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know nobody explicitly said I am a lazy ignoramus, but the tone of some of the above comments certainly suggests it. I haven't improved the article myself for two reasons: 1. I know nothing about the subject matter and do not believe I could properly make the improvements. 2. I do not believe this is a particularly notable concept that Wikipedia needs to cover in it's own article, which is the only reason I have nominated it for deletion. I love seeing crappy articles get improved by collaboration. That has not and by all indications will not happen to this article. Your own argument leans towards not keeping it as a stand alone article, the problem being that there is no umbrella article on the broader subject involved to merge it to. In short I would fix it myself if I thought I could, I'm not afraid to improve articles and have done so hundreds of times. I don't see any hope for this one, and it is tiring in the extreme to repeatedly see the argument that somebody possibly could maybe fix it someday based on nothing but WP:GHITS. I also don't appreciate the suggestion that I have abused the afd process. I am not advocating that the article be cleaned up because I don't think it can be. I am advocating for its deletion, which is exactly what AFD is for. I have to mention as well that "whinger" is not a term I am familiar with but I have a feeling I don't much like being thus identified. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no prejudice to discussion elsewhere agreeing to organise the content differently. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties M to W

List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties M to W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This partially duplicates the scope of List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties H-W cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 03:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 its lacking decent independant sourcing then the deletion votes are indeed policy based and compelling Spartaz Humbug! 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

575th Signal Company (United States)

575th Signal Company (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105th Military Police Company (United States) separate, non-combat companies are not considered sufficent notable to merit their own articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per the guidance at WP:MILMOS/N. Currently the article does not demonstrate how this subunit is notable enough to require an article by itself. IMO, the subject could possibly be covered in an article about a parent formation, although any additions would have to be mindful of WP:UNDUE. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nominator and AR. Anotherclown (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, it is somewhat peculiar that nom failed to respect my note that I was adding sources in a bit. He waited not even an hour an a half, which may be on the shy side of requisite wp:admin civility, especially given WP:NORUSH. I've now added the sources. As to nom's "otherstuff", I point him to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which clarifies that his pointing to other articles not existing is not a good argument for deletion. But rather one that we are urged to avoid making in an AfD discussion. We have to look at each article, and what he is pointing to is certainly not a wikipedia policy or guideline. But rather a few AfDs that are fact-specific, and have not gone through the proposal/discussion/review/consensus required to set wp policy and guidelines.
Furthermore, as nom likely is aware, other articles on other such companies do in fact exist on wikipedia (see, e.g., the articles with lesser RS coverage reflecting notability that we have for: United States Marine Corps Joint Assault Signals Company, 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company, 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company, 4th Force Reconnaissance Company, 59th Quartermaster Company (United States), 119th Assault Helicopter Company, 253 Provost Company, 320th Military Police Company, 372nd Military Police Company (United States), 507th Maintenance Company, 601 Commando Company, 602 Commando Company, Company F, 425th Infantry, Military Police Special Service Company, Number 1 Armoured Car Company RAF, and Rifle Company Butterworth). In any event, the article now reflects sufficient RS coverage of this company (though the prior commentators did not have a chance to see the refs) to satisfy wp's general notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge: no independnat notability per WP:MILMOS/N and the listed precedents. It's ironic almost to offense that Epeefleche criticizes the nominator for WP:OTHERSTUFF by offering several precedents, then goes on to violate it blatently himself in his second paragraph. Apples to oranges in many of those links, especially the Force Recons and the 507th, which are quite clearly notable in and of themselves. The reference additions were not really substantive as I can tell; most of them seem to be about higher formations or lists of units, rather than the company itself, and mostly only go to establish that the company exists and its lineage, rather than proving it is independantly notable. The article also seems to contradict itself somewhat, first by detailing its combat history (with some officers that seem rather high-ranking to be serving in a signal company), then claims in the last paragraph that the unit was created on paper as a ghost unit for deception purposes! Was it a real unit formed in 1943 that fought in Europe, or what it a dummy unit concieved in 1944 and simply generated false radio traffic? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you miss a couple of points. First, I wasn't hanging my hat on "other stuff" -- I was simply pointing out that (since the issue was raised by nom) other stuff does exist. Second, as the guideline points out, as a sole criterion "otherstuff" fails. That is what nom did. But when coupled with other reasons, it may well form part of a cogent rationale. I was certainly supplying other reasons. Third, unlike the real world, wikipedia does not work on precedents (though often I wish it did). Fourth, I gather I must revisit the article later today when I have a moment to address what no doubt was my poor drafting. The company both existed as a real 575th Signal Company (the ranks that you refer to were of people in the company), and as a notional 575th Signal Company (to mislead the Germans as to where the non-notional entity was--the hope was that the Germans would be deceived into moving its forces to the location that the notional force was ... with the notional 575th Signal Company sending messages that supported the belief that the US was massing its forces there). Fifth, a problem with an upmerge is that editors such as the first !voter above may well argue that it would be too much -- wp:undue. Sixth, this article has more RS support, IMHO, than each of the above-indicated articles about other companies.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you rather misinterpreted my rationale. I did not insinuate that OTHERSTUFF was the cruxt of your argument, simply expressed my anger that you could be so brazen in criticizing Buckshot and then trangress yourself. The nominator did not rely on OTHERSTUFF as a rationale, rather, he stated "separate, non-combat companies are not considered sufficent notable to merit their own articles" and pointed to precedent, which Wikipedia does recognize (perhaps not as a manner of policy, but as an argument in a centrallized discussion, yet, it has merit). An upmerge need not violate UNDUE if done carefully, which I think it can be easily.
I thank you for clarifying the point about the deception: that there was the real company and a deception company under the same name. Surely that can be made more clear in the article. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not being clear. OTHERSTUFF only applies where it is the crux of the argument, not where it is only a part of the argument. "Precedent" is other stuff, and that is the crux of what he relied on. I have to disagree with you about how precedent is viewed on wp ... this has been discussed many times throughout the project (and believe me, I am not wholly in favor of the project view, though I respect it). And let me clarify again -- inasmuch as I clearly (I thought it was clear) did not rely on other stuff as the crux of my rationale, the very terms of the policy make quite clear that to point to other stuff in such circumstances may well be completely appropriate -- not at all a "transgression". For policy, we look to more centralized discussions that is afforded by three AfDs, all brought by the nom here, with very limited community input in toto. That why in AfD arguments to avoid it is made clear that, while precedents may have an impact on an AfD, the fact that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable. I would be interested in Australia's comments as to whether all of this material could be maintained in an upmerge ... I'm not sure he would agree with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Epeefleche's listing are almost exclusively separate combat companies, of which we have agreed on the notability. The others - including a sigs company, I see - are candidates for deletion themselves. This article needs to have its text split between the 75th Div article - where KOBLENZ could go - and, possibly other articles, but the company is not notable in of of itself. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - couldn't find material coverage. KVIKountry (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hypothetically, one could get one other person to agree to a vague deletion criteria on a project page, get one related article 'A' deleted on those grounds, and then get B deleted on the strength of A's deletion, C deleted on the strength of A & B...Not 'sufficient' good policy. Link to the original discussion, please. Anarchangel (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) is in the deletion explanation request is that it includes a perma-link to the original discussion. Please read the linked AfDs - that's why they're there. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

It seems this article was subject to puffery orchestrated by its PR department and repeated here on wiki, whether intentional or not. After weighing the strength of the various positions it seems fairly clear that consensus is to delete the article at this time. Before I go, here's a little something for User:AkankshaG for adding a massive wall of text which I just had to read in order to close this, only to find that it was largely unrelated to the discussion of the notability of this company and the suitability of this article on Wikipedia:

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ciplex

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

Article was created by Ciplex executive for promotional purposes. Recommended deletion per wp:coi wp:npov wp:soapbox Phearson (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.
What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”
Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.
I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.
User:Phearson/User:Cutno didn't get the result he wanted in one ANI, then another ANI, and a sockpuppet investigation, and now he's WP:Forum shopping and trying to get a different result here. He's also tried to OUT me, which he was cautioned against by an WP:OVERSIGHT administrator. Not satisfied with that, User:Phearson/User:Cutno has tried to intimidate me from editing the Vector article by going around and nominating my work for deletion.
I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove any theorized ruminations about my RL identity.
Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally both on Wikipedia and off-Wikipedia: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "h monthly" - who or what is this? A style magazine? It's hard to judge reliability of something that doesn't have an "about us" page and/or wikipedia article.
  2. Various "Inc. 5000" spotlights and listings. Does not establish notability, though helpful for filling in an article.
  3. Articles talking about "first multi-touch website using Silverlight". Many, many articles linked. These are all syndicated copies of a TechCruch article or reblogs about the article. This is the what comes closest to satisfying WP:ORG and WP:GNG in my mind since the Washington Post syndicated the TechCrunch article. But it's hardly sufficient, and "first X of Y in Z" is pretty threadbare- by way of analogy, I could have been the fastest 3rd grade runner under 65 pounds at my school, but that's hardly showing a depth of continued coverage.
  4. Likewise, winning many various small awards doesn't hold any weight. Might be worth mentioning.
  5. Finally, running Von Dutch's website might hold merit, though nobody (in journalistic circles) is talking about that being a big deal.
tedder (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the decent sourcing mentioned here is referenced in the article so the sourcing is by assertion and therefore a weak argument. Please can someone voting keep list the sources they are referring to so they can be evaluated? Thanks. (This is an alternative to it being deleted for unverified sourcing and then undeleted and relisted once someone dumps them on my talk page :-) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Delete. This is an interactive agency that provides creative, technology, and marketing services. Ciplex specializes in web design, web development, branding, search engine optimization, social media and custom marketing campaigns for businesses. Inclusion in "top 500" lists and the like obviously does not confer notability on a business; nor do trade awards, given their proliferation. A large number of the "separate" references in "multiple" sources appear to be the same story. The rest of the sources would appear to be trade blogs, online profiles, and other self-published or low circulation sources. The bottom line is that there's no showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance; building the "World's First Multi-Touch Website Using Silverlight" does not cut the mustard, no matter how mightily Microsoft's publicity department has labored to promote Silverlight, and that appears to be what we're looking at in that coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how this meets WP:CORP at the moment, because the only significant reliable coverage are about the first multi-touch website (whatever that is) but I can't find anything actually about the company. People are correct to say it has been mentioned in multiple RSs but, they don't directly discuss the company and therefore we should not have an article on the company at present. SmartSE (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to find any RSs discussing this company. most of the sources used to reference this article are actually just one piece that was written in the tech section of the washington post and subsequently linked or copied around to various sites. and the washington post article gives nothing but a passing mention about the company, rather focussing more on the "multi-touch" technology. don't see any other RSs justifying this articles existence presently, most other references given are user generated websites. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Will be glad to userfy/restore this if someone wants to source it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Valent

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

Unsourced biography with vague assertions of notability. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WorkKeys

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

Article about a product is written entirely by the vendor. No sources cited that would establish notability - in fact, no sources cited at all. Text is plagiarized from that vendor's materials, e.g., from http://www.act.org/news/releases/2006/09-27-06.html. I don't believe that the WorkKeys assessment is notable; even if sources can be provided demonstrating its notability, the article would need to be re-written from the ground up to make it neutral. Greenth (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but with significant cleanup. I noticed this AfD because I was aware of WorkKeys (although I knew nothing about it) before seeing the article -- up until a year or two ago, the state of Tennessee (where I live) required many high school students to take this test. It's still required by several states for various uses -- that's a strong basis for notability. The article (which has been in Wikipedia for a couple of years) was derived largely from vendor promotional materials, but that's a problem that can be resolved by rewriting. I've spent some time rewriting parts of the article -- and I've added some reference citations to third-party sources. I think that this can become an acceptable article with additional cleanup. --Orlady (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Bertman

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

Fails WP:PROF. E.g., no evidence of significant impact on the field or national awards. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I have to disagree. This does not fail WP:PROF. As per the Criteria section, "If an academic/professor meets […] the following condition[..], as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. […] The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC."
In the latter guideline, it is noted that "A musician […] may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: […] is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." It also states that a musician may be notable if he or she "[h]as won or placed in a major music competition."
It is verifiable that Bertman was a director of two independently notable ensembles (The Cavaliers Drum and Bugle Corps as well as the Spirit of Houston). It is also verifiable that while Bertman was with the Cavaliers, they won multiple Drum Corps International World Class Championships. This classifies as a "major music competition".
It should also be noted that Bertman is an author of a series of books by a major publisher, the Hal Leonard Corporation.
It is for all of this, that I cannot advocate the deletion of this article. Brian Reading (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The book series is not mentioned in the article. Also, in The Cavaliers Drum and Bugle Corps, David Bertman is not mentioned at all. Instead it says that Jeff Fiedler retired as director in 2008, after 17 years, and that Adolph DeGrauwe is current director. So it appears that David Bertman was not the director when the major award was won. You'd need a reliable source for that. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the book series is not mentioned, then it should be. However, this is not a valid reason for deletion. Bertman was not the main director of the Drum and Bugle Corps, he was the Brass caption head, which is a major direction position. Regardless, the language in the guideline simply states that if the musician was simply a member of the ensembles, this is adequate enough. These are things that can be easily verifiable. I applaud your effort to clean up non-notable subject articles from Wikipedia, but I find it wise to familiarize myself with the subject of an article prior to requesting deletion. Brian Reading (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your reply. I enthusiastically agree with your point about what is wise. If you have some sourced information that would help improve this article, I encourage you to edit the article. That would be a valuable contribution. With that said, I am somewhat doubtful that simply being a member of two marching bands is enough to be notable, even though WP:MUSIC could be read that way. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nomo's points above are well-taken. I'm quite confident, in particular, that the distinction he draws concerning what constitutes an "ensemble" is spot on. Remember, guidelines like WP:MUSIC essentially attempt to predict notability, and it seems to stretch the boundaries of common sense that all members of a notable marching band -- this is literally thousands of people over the course of a given marching band's history -- are notable for this particular association in the same way that WP:MUSIC effectively "predicts" notability for a member of a rock band or string quartet, which has a much more limited and less given to fluctuation lineup. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I agree with Nomoskedasticity and Ginsengbomb about WP:MUSIC. To me, the only viable way to argue that the article should be saved would be to say that Bertman's books satisfy some criteria in WP:PROF. For example, Criteria 4 could be satisfied if several of Bertman's books "are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." I'm voting for deletion but would reconsider if someone comes up with a viable argument using WP:PROF. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Redirect to Spirit of Houston, where he is already mentioned. An associate professor, a university band director - these do not amount to notability, and little coverage is found at Google News. However I did find this article from the Dallas Morning News, which sounds like it might amount to significant coverage; can anybody read it behind the paywall? --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakamura Toranosuke

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

fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews and google indicates mainly mirror sites. simply being a kabuki actor doesn't guarantee an article. would reconsider if someone can find Japanese coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Crazed

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

Non-notable biography; Sources is not enough to support its notability, since the artist is only making recognition online Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 08:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Is someone can find better sources then feel free to recreate this. Will userfy/incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shaikh

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

Article doesnot meet notability guideline (WP:N) of Wikipedia! BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lear's, 4th most influential Muslim in the world, 2009 Reuters poll, reference updated in the article. What needs to be re-written further? Please elaborate.ThanksMessengerOfPeace (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not voting Delete, because this is an area of Wikipedia where we could use more coverage, but the sources are weak. Since the IIPC broadcasts in English it seems possible that more printed materials may exist. Couldn't Shaikh have written some articles for English-language newspapers? Might there not be English-language reviews of his work? The 2009 Reuters poll mentioned above is only an online poll of anyone who happened to go and click a button on the web page, so we would not usually count that as any indication of notability. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daze (Eurodance band)

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

This article cites one source, which is a listing that includes the name only and is in any case a primary source. It has never had any other sources and it reads as a personal essay or opinion. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added and the worst of the opinion stuff removed. Please indicate if more is needed. --Harthacnut (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against recreation if someone wishes to create a sourced article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Petrick

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

This article was created by an IP in 2005 and hasn't grown over a sentence since. It remains unreferenced and after having tried a whole host of different google searches I couldn't find a source. The no reference tag has been on the page since June 2009 but to no avail. I submit that we will find it impossible to find a reference for the article, therefore it has no place on WP. Also, are presidents of cable TV channels even notable? —Half Price 13:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cronsync

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

Non-notable software package. Coverage at t3n does not appear to amount to significant coverage, merely a blurb. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Absolutely no sourcing to imply it passes WP:GNG, and no rebuttal to or allaying of the nominator's argument and issue. Ironholds (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic cowboy

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

Apparently non-notable fashion trend. Searches returns a few literal results - ie. people using "gothic cowboy" as a nickname &c - but no substantial discussion of "gothic cowboy" as a fashion trend. bobrayner (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried that and found no sources which actually discussed the "gothic cowboy" subject in any more depth than just gluing together the words "gothic" and "cowboy" as part of a discussion of related concepts. If you can identify any sources, they would be welcome; but in the meantime The Nephs might not be cited, because it's a wikipedia article and it neither includes nor paraphrases "gothic cowboy". Whether or not it's real is not at stake; notability is the problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locbook

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

Apparently non-notable software. One EL is the freshmeat page and the other EL simply quotes two sentences from the freshmeat page. Google returns a handful of single-paragraph results but they all appear to copy & paste either developer blurb or this article. There does not appear to be the in-depth discussion by independent sources which is needed to establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Google search on "linux petroleum accounting software" returns this first on the list and while a few other petroleum accounting packages are listed as well, if you go to their sites none of them have a Linux version and none are freeware. So being that this is the only Linux and only freeware petroleum accounting software would seem to be somewhat notable. The developer indicated that this software package was initially released in September 2010 so that may be why independent articles can't be found in the Internet yet.Skykt (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only being released for four months does certainly explain the lack of sources, especially for such a niche market as this. But perhaps that is proof that it is WP:TOOSOON for Locbook to have a Wikipedia article. -- RoninBK T C 06:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros-Ferdinandos Georgoudas

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

fails WP:Notability (sports) for tennis players Mayumashu (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Sagginario

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

Won a Radio Disney contest, released an EP on a non-notable label. Sources are entirely tied to the winning of the contest, with no further notability beyond that. Borderline case, probably, but I'm tempted to say she just fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is an opinion on artist, however, shows no premise to delete Jasmine Sagginario as a music artist. The article above states she has released an EP on a non-notable label...The album was distributed through Sony/Provident. Please see provided link below:

http://www.providentmusic.com/pgs/artists.details.aspx?ArtistCode=JASM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasminepedia (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
could you please define good standard? There is no way this article meets WP:GA. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy

Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this article because I loved the book, but in retrospect, I'm not sure if this particular edition is notable enough for its own article. What say you all? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let it develop with what? The same friggin' information that's already in the articles in all three books' articles? Don't you think the article is redundant since it just says "this is about the series, which consists of 3 books that already have their own articles" and nothing else? It'd only get more redundant if we parroted info from the existing articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's worse than that -- she's up to 5 books in the series now. :-) My question is, was the publication of all three books together notable enough for an article, since there was a sizeable gap in time and style between the third and fourth books, or is it just a random omnibus volume that has no independent notability? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes the books were extremely popular during its publishing although not quite a worldwide phenomena. The original books were a trilogy the later 2 books are considered 'sequel'. Anyway as User talk:TenPoundHammer said we should not parrot articles. On second view if the article would have had a little more info then we should've allowed it. Ok now I am confused.Vin99 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29,000 hits for "increasingly+inaccurately+named+trilogy", but that is literally a different story. Also see, "a trilogy in five parts", and "the (series) that gives a whole new meaning to the word 'trilogy'". Anarchangel (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I loved the books myself back in the day, but the issue isn't whether the books merit articles, it's whether they, as a trilogy, comprise a subject that meets the GNG. I don't think that they do. About a zillion authors have taken a swing at the subject matter, and finding sources which discuss this trilogy as a trilogy is a mug's game. Heck, is this title even a commonly accepted one for the series, or does it happen to be the name of a particular publisher's omnibus collection?  Ravenswing  05:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands, merge to Mary Stewart#The Merlin Series. Articles covering a series of creative works can be encyclopaedic if there is information that can be written about the series as a whole. (For instance, I'm sure no-one would delete The Chronicles of Narnia.) However, this article says little other which books are in the trilogy and that the three are published in a single volume. That fits better in the article about the writer. Should someone want to write a more detailed article about the series, we can consider splitting this off again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lin Biao. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Liheng

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

Notability based on one event only - and even that appears to be based on speculation as to the possibility that she inadvertently alerted the authorities to her parents' plot against Mao. Subject is covered fully at Lin Biao. Also long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. Sources could be found if a decision is made to keep. Plad2 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd found that source as well (it was one of the sources I mention which could be found to establish that she exists), but it doesn't really help establish notability in her own right. If you can provide more details and sources for the "well-known in China as a historian" to a level which meets WP:PROF that would be an enormous help.--Plad2 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a Chinese source which goes into more detail about her involvement in the Modern China Research Dept of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, but I don't know it satisfies WP:RS.--PCPP (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Chinese source from User:PCPP is user-edited and says it's based on (but doesn't mirror) the Chinese WP entry, I'd say that it therefore isn't a WP:RS. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laagi Tujhse Lagan

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

Was closed as redirect before, but with only one person taking part. Closer has suggested it be renominated as a user is refusing to accept the outcome of the first AfD. I have no opinion on the notability GedUK  20:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the "keep" commenters could provide reliable sources to show that this article meets WP:GNG (and, ideally add them to the article) and if all participants could provide full, policy-referencing rationales for their !vote, I would be very grateful. Ironholds (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the "delete" commenters could just take a couple of seconds to click on the word "news" in the nomination and look at the first few articles found I would be very grateful. The only possible way not to find reliable sources is not to bother to look for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Linksvayer

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

We have three sources from Creative Commons (primary), a paragraph in a CNET news article where he does his job and encourages scientists to use CC licenses, one IHT article about veganism that mentions him for a couple of paragraphs, and a link to his Wikipedia userpage. That is not enough for notability, in my opinion.

Note that on his userpage, he says "I am the subject of Mike Linksvayer, which I would strongly advocate deleting if I were a deletionist (be my guest)" NW (Talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only list the sources currently in the article, which suggests that you didn't search for further sources. You quote Linksvayer's comment about "strongly advocating deleting", but these comments are quite clearly sardonic if you read his blog - I'm noting this so that the closing admin doesn't conclude that this is an argument for deletion from the subject. This said, based on the coverage I can find, I suggest the best course is a selective merge to Creative Commons#Governance - he hasn't been the subject of substantial coverage, but details about him would fit within the article about the organisation for which he is VP. Fences&Windows 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stolen Cartoons

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

Plot-only description of a non-notable TV episode. No significant, independent coverage in reliable sources of this episode to satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWong gab 23:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarabelle's Big Secret

Clarabelle's Big Secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plot-only description of a non-notable TV episode. No significant, independent coverage in reliable sources of this episode to satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWong talk 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO guidelines interlink; simply passing one of them is sufficient for inclusion. In this case, the subject seems to pass WP:BIO, and the users' consensus reflects this. Ironholds (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Pielmeier (3rd nomination)

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

Contested PROD, reason given that he is the starting goalie for an AHL team (which is not a valid reason for notability under WP:ATH. Has not played professionally in the NHL, and, according to the links, his play in the DEL was actually in the junior leagues. Ravendrop (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Courcelles 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winn Adami

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

Article is completely unreferenced. It is written in an entirely in-universe manner, and I can't find much real-world coverage of this character in secondary sources independent of the subject. These problems have existed for several years, and I don't see much hope that they can ever be resolved. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of characters in Deep Space Nine the character does appear many times in the series and does play an important role in several episodes/story arcs, but there simply isn't enough outside coverage on her to merit an article. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 05:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in Deep Space Nine per above. An important character in the series. JIP | Talk 06:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to keep or merge, but the deletion tool is clearly not called for here. Further discussion on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rom (Star Trek)

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

Article is completely unreferenced. It is written in an entirely in-universe manner, and I can't find much real-world coverage of this character in secondary sources independent of the subject. These problems have existed for several years, and I don't see much hope that they can ever be resolved. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus regarding to keep as a seperate article or merge, but the deletion tool is clearly not called for here. Further discussion on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nog

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

Article is completely unreferenced. It is written in an entirely in-universe manner, and I can't find much real-world coverage of this character in secondary sources independent of the subject. These problems have existed for several years, and I don't see much hope that they can ever be resolved. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen (radio personality)

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

Previously deleted under PROD and recreated. Questionable notability with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APAtT

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

Music group that doesn't appear to meet the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. Only independent source is a news listing showing that they played once at a local music festival. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on the issue of "keep" vs "delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Any OR issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mockney

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

I am nominating this article for deletion mainly because it is an article about a word, in violation of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A more serious problem is with WP:Living persons policies, since it in effect is labeling quite a number of people as being dishonest because they assume Cockney accents to play roles in movies or TV or for other reasons. The article was kept in 2005 but that seems to be mostly "I like it" votes without these issues being brought up at all. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note If the article just explains what a "Mockney" is it is just a dictionary definition. If it gives examples (of living persons) then it is slandering those people based on someone else's opinion. Jaque Hammer (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure calling someone a 'Mockney' is actually slander, but I can se the BLP problem. Definitely a word for a dictionary, but not for Wikipedia: unencyclopedic, innit ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 07:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is far from (and could be even further) a dictionary definition, as it extends to cover the cultural implications of the label. See also Plastic Paddy, as an extensive example of how such a subject can be treated.
A merge to Cockney would be utterly wrong. Mockney is the antithesis of Cockney, has almost no geographical overlap with it and is of recent origin. The BLP issue is trivial, because we will of course maintain our usual standards of sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is more than a dicdef and it is an encyclopedic subject. walk victor falk talk 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ultra groups

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

List of mainly not notable groups. Most of these are only referenced by WP:PRIMARY sources. Gnevin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/05/national/main7215425.shtml
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Criticism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_4&oldid=405972715"