Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 28

< 27 September	29 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Thing

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

Article based entirely on original research. One source links to a blog. The other links to Last.FM which is nothing more than a glorified blog that anyone can edit. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even with the sources given, the phrase "the new thing" proves vague. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; given the lack of sources, article appears to be entirely original research. Delete per WP:OR. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. prime example of Wikipedia:By your own bootstraps (well, we SHOULD have this as a policy)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unreliable sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Party

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

The article is poorly written and short. AppaAliApsa (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:RS and WP:OR..South Bay (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1 (patent nonsense), A1 (no context) and A3 (no content). Also as above fails WP:N (does not establish notability, and may well be WP:OR (original research). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this was the original location of Satellite Party (band), which should probably be moved back if this is deleted. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Electronics and Tele-Communication Engineering

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

I do not see any indication that this particular department is notable & I can find no sources to that effect--few individual academic departments are. The information given here would indicate average importance only, not notability,e.g. "Several students who have passed out successfully of this department are holding important positions " DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Blargh29 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this department is held out for special distinction. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Proprietary software. Non-admin closure. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 15:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed source software

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

The article is original research. 'Closed source software' is the same as 'Proprietary software'. Verification of claims was requested 18 months ago, but no refs were provided. Lester 23:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Proprietary software they are the same. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, this is a widely used term. "Closed source" is not exactly the same as proprietary software, since proprietary software can have the source available (thus, it is not "closed source") SF007 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: The term Open source software and the Open Source Definition is not only about the code being viewable or downloadable. It's about the code being "open" for users "to use, change, and improve the software, and to redistribute it in modified or unmodified forms." The opposite of that is proprietary. If you open your software for others to modify and use as they please, you are by definition relinquishing your proprietary claim on it.--Lester 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proprietary software since the former came into usage in a way similar to non-free software. "Closed source" is just shorthand to say not "Open-source" as "non-free" is shorthand for not "free software". Of course, there is no article for non-free software. It correctly redirects to proprietary software. --Ashawley (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to proprietary software as per Ashawley above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to proprietary software as per above. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As the editor who listed this AfD, I just wanted to say that I support the idea proposed by the editors above, to redirect it to proprietary software.--Lester 06:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemu64

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

This program does not assert any sort of notability. The details are extremely trivial and the most the article can be is an advertisement for the program (though it's a free program). Basic details can be listed at List of video game console emulators. TTN (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing that, delete per WP:N - the article does not establish notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) no notability is asserted here. Or just do it the slow and painful way, if we must. JBsupreme (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless it is going by the wrong name, there are no reliable sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:V is core policy; if the existence of a novel cannot be verified, it has no place in Wikipedia. The "keep" comments do not address this problem and are discounted in this closure. Sandstein 05:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-COM: UFO Defense (Russian novel)

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

Notability for this Russian-only novel is quite weak. Remurmur (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 10:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is, yes. What ways have you used to check whether the article can be improved, and do any come to mind that we could still try? Have you contacted Russian-speakers on the project? --Kiz o r 22:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The fact that it is Russian is not grounds for deletion. That said, someone who can read Russian might want to check this link. I can't tell which sites are reliable. SharkD (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the fact that it's Russian that's the problem; it's that it's a novelization, which are rather non-notable by default. For consideration, note that we have no articles for the eight StarCraft novels (they were merged into StarCraft (series)).--Remurmur (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Being a novelization also does not make something non-notable "by default". Please reread WP:RS. SharkD (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per weak rationale. Nominator's responses have proven that no research was done on the novelization, and

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not grounds for deletion. Vodello (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Because there's no research to do. I can't find anything that's not Wikipedia-derived from web searches and the "novel" was written by an internet-based Russian fan fiction writer. I don't even think the blasted thing was ever published.--Remurmur (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with UFO:Enemy Unknown, or with X-COM. And delete all the plot/differences from the game minutiae, it's overly detailed and non-notable. To address comments above: the notability of this novel is not established within the article, and it therefore fails WP:N - and more importantly, WP:BK, which asks for a significantly higher standard of notability. The information in the article might, however, be of interest to those researching the specific game the novel is based on or the franchise as a whole and therefore may have a place on those pre-existing pages. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing resembling a reliable source for this, WP:V isn't satisfied let alone WP:N. No prejudice against reinstatement if it can be sources, but I can't support a merge as there's no sources to verify it, it's not clear if this is even an ordinary novel or a work of fan fiction, if it's the latter then there would be zero need to mention it unless it was notable. Someone another 01:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that it is Russian is not grounds for deletion. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds of verifiability. ISBN? Publisher? Vladimir Vasilyev is a fan fiction writer, so was this perhaps self-published? The bulk of the article, a comparison between the story and the game, appears to be original research. Find a reliable citation, and perhaps the novel can be mentioned in the UFO: Enemy Unknown article itself. Marasmusine (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for speedy deletion disregarded as going directly against policy and established practice. decltype (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LabPlot

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

Contested Prod, original Prod reasoning Non-notable software. Source checks show it appears as mere indexes in directories of software. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Nominating here after looking for reliable sources that discuss the software and not finding any. No indication this is notable software. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally searched and could not find good coverage of this. Miami33139 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for sources when this was mentioned in an AFD. I couldn't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing that, it fails WP:N - notability is not established within the article text. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) -- nothing in the way of notability is asserted here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not speedy as it's a computer program, which is specifically excluded from A7. Please check WP:CSD, and it's tak p. for discussions explaining why these sorts of things are not included. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep has 28 google scholar hits and 23 google book hits--UltraMagnus (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We want sources about LabPlot, not papers that say "I used LabPlot to crunch some numbers." Can you identify which of these Google hits actually counts as a reference about LabPlot so the rest of us do not have to mine through an unrefined search? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami33139 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2009
Keep WP:N states that peer recognition is one indication of notability. If Miamia33139 acknowledges the existence of this recognition (in the form of dozens of citations), then this article should be kept. Note: I have not actually hunted for sources about this. I suspect they exist. But our policy does not say that they must exist to keep this. --Karnesky (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Karnesky (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, numerous sources, software is actively used, print media coverage. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It wouldn't be mentioned in that many books, if it wasn't notable. Dream Focus 03:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Peer recognition is obvious. Sources indicating such recognition exist. As such, it is notable by all standards. Notability guidelines have to be interpreted with reasonable WP:COMMONSENSE: not covering a largely peer-recognized software is a hole in our coverage. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the notability requirement. It has multiple sources on google books. Burningview ✉ 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the Google books hits discuss this software package. Some of them seem to mention the software because they are software catalogs. A catalog does not establish notability. The Western Educational Computing Conference book says that students in a course were introduced to the software package during the course, again no notability. There are a few books that are about GIS, the reference to Labplot in these all seem to be a filename, no discussion about the software package at all. The other books don't appear to be any help either. The Google scholar hits are not any help either. Most of them appear to be some one did research and used the software package to present the info, this does not establish notability. If I am missing something let me know which hits establish notability so we can work them into the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widespread use is one indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Novick

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

No evidence of individual notability, he has co-produced films with Diablo Cody but there is little evidence of what he has done, other than put his name to productions. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is an officially credited producer for Juno and was nominated for the Producers Guild of America and Academy Award for Best Picture and and won the Independent Spirit Award for Best Film. I'm not always clear on what various producers do, but could verify the awards and nominations, by which makes him notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have no idea of what he actually did or does then how can he meet the GNG? Other than a suggestion to Diablo Cody to write a screenplay there is no evidence that he has actually done anything. There are a number of times when a producer is named on an award as a favour rather than a testament to anything they did. With no clear idea of what he has done (most sources only mention his name in passing) then how is he notable? Notability is not inherited. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren you are sadly confused and your statement is silly and wrong. It was long ago decided (see Don Murphy vs Wikipedia and teh world) that producers are noteworthy and deserving of their own article. I see you edited Don Murphy today saying there was no such film even though, oddly, THE CITATION SAYS THERE WAS. You need a time out young husted ItsWhatYouKnow (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)— ItsWhatYouKnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Take a step back, did you even look at what I took out? Torso (2009 film) leads to a redirect that goes to a non-existent section link on David Fincher's article. So I suggest, "ItsWhatYouKnow" that you go make a contribution before addressing me. And as for "producers are notable", since when did we ignore the WP:GNG for a blanket inclusion of anyone whose name gets listed under the word "producer". Don Murphy does not make Mason Novick notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You take a step back- you are opening up a situation that has been handled before. Don Murphy is never listed alone as a producer. Don Murphy hasn't won any awards. Don Murphy has asked to be let out of the Wiki. Yet he has lost multiple AFDs because Producers are held to be notable. So you are WRONG, dangerously so when you say Don Murphy does not make Mason Novick notable. Notice NO ONE agrees with you? ItsWhatYouKnow (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is measured on its own merits, and that one person is notable has nothing to do with another person being notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple MAJOR award-winning film producer. Article needs expansion, not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major award winner and nominee, how he could possibly be considered non-notable is beyond me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Academy Award nominated producer. There's really no higher way of demonstrating that a given Hollywood producer is considered notable by his peers. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Picture is a sure sign that a person is notable as a movie producer. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep wildly inappropriate nomination (& in fact, it had prev. been nom. for a speedy!). Not all producers are notable, but this one certainly is. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Energy Insights

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

Second nomination. Article has not improved since last AfD 6 months ago. Non-notable journal, seems to be more of a blog nowadays (what exactly is not clear from their website). Article misses all of the criteria of WP:Notability (Academic Journals). Even if this is not regarded as an academic journal, it misses all of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. The article lists 2 other articles that have cited this journal, which is far from being sufficient to satisfy either of the 2 notability guidelines cited above. Delete. Crusio (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - the cited sources do not, as far as I can tell, support the claims that they are cited for, which leaves the article completely failing WP:N. Even were the sources to contain the information claimed, I'm not sure that the fact the publication has been mentioned in two separate places constitutes significant discussion of it by its peers - it would still fail WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even in Ulrich's, a very basic criterion. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. --Crusio (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG; also, very few Ghits at Google scholar [1]. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 suggest that a renomination or merger should be considered if and as soon as it is clear that the debates won't happen. Sandstein 05:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election debates, 2009-2010

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

This article is incredibly premature and is predominantly conjecture. Gordon Brown is reported to be considering these debates, and even if he agrees to the idea there is no assurance they will take place at all or in the manner described. I42 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Prime Minister is going to announce this in his conference speech and David Cameron has been calling for a leaders debate for years now. Also, Sky News has said it will hold a debate 'with or without Gordon Brown' (Cameron and Clegg have already agreed to take part). I feel the likelihood of these debates passes the threshold needed to have an article. --Philip Stevens (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that events will pan out as you predict - indeed, by the time this AfD comes to an end the situation may be much clearer. But as of now your article makes assertions which simply cannot be made. There is no rush - the article can be created when the facts are known. I42 (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Gordon Brown did not say he would do the debate during the conference speech. When questioned, he said he has made up his mind, but will say what his decision is at an appropriate time. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the BBC is now reporting that Gordon Brown is saying it is not the "right time" for an announcement. This, IMO, should certainly see the article deleted but does not affect my deletion rationale - there should never have been this speculation in the first place. I42 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It's very difficult for a future event that may or may not take place to be notable; this article is premature and can be recreated (at the earliest) when the possibility of their future existence has some real and notable effect on the socio-political landscape. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone Debate There is a good change that this will be confirmed or rejected This week it would make more sense to have this debate after the Labour Conference. Otherwise Keep; there is enough media debate raging to source an article on the positions of the parties on whether to have one or not. --Nate ^t/_c 12:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until we know one way or the other. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. BBC, ITV and Sky are now well in the process of making arrangements for this. Should these debates not go ahead, the fact that arrangements were advanced this far will be notable in itself. (Possibly something to merge, but choices between keep and merge aren't really AfD material.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the same reasoning, David Cameron's first year in office, 2010-11 would be acceptable - it's a well discussed possibility, after all. But still something which cannot be predicted with certainty. Discussion of that eventuality may well belong in WP, but not in that form. Same for this article. I42 (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election until the event is confirmed. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author's rationale that Brown would say during the latest Labour conference that he would participate has not come to pass. If and when the Prime Minister agrees, I'll be the first person to call for this to be kept. For the time being, though, there are too many question marks over the whole thing. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the verifiable information about it to Next United Kingdom general election. If they happen and become too much for that article, then it can be spun out as a standalone article again. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update, the Prime Minister has agreed "in principle" to take part in TV debates.[2] --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Aardsma

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

non-notable actress/former beauty queen. Has entered national beauty pageants but not won. some minor TV roles, including a bit part on CSI, but does not pass notability guidelines. practically unreferenced BLP Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any of Ms Aardsma's previous work or appearances could be notable; the article would merely need to find significant secondary-source discussion of them, and establish how those appearances have had some impact on our cultural landscape. That doesn't appear in the article at present though, so it fails WP:N as non-notable. If changes are made to this aspect of the article I'm prepared to reconsider my vote. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -meets requirements, need expansion. Himalayan 11:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think winning the Miss Colorado Teen USA title passes the test for notability. If I'm wrong, then there's a list with a lot of redlinks which needs to thorough vetting. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ANYBIO #1... needs some real ref work / improvement, but appears to pass notability concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott Scotland

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

Clearly a non neutral website therefore breaches WP terms for inclusion of a web site. Is also a "bedroom" campaign and it has had no significant impact and is unlikely to have therefore it is not qualified as a full article. It should have at best a one line entry into the Al Megrahi release article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ah, the website may not be neutral but the article is. Notability is asserted and is supported by appropriate references. Crafty (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That's no reason for deletion, WP:NPOV doesn't extend to topics not being allowed to be non-neutral. They are what they are. As long as the reliable sources discussing the topic are neutral, and the discussion is significant enough, it should be included in the encyclopedia.
However, I'm not really sure that page has the long-term notability that I'm looking for. A merge into Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi could be considered, but for other reasons than in the nomination. Amalthea 21:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not satisfied that the article is neutral. The boycott has received significant coverage in the UK, much of it derisive. Some coverage of those objections would be required for neutrality however this is fixable and not a reason to delete. I am also inclined to support a merge, as suggested by Amalthea, for two reasons:

It ties the boycott to the thing it is protesting about, distinguishing it from people boycotting Scotland for other reasons. Given that people are always boycotting something or other, this might be beneficial. Next week there might be a completely different "Boycott Scotland" campaign complaining about cruelty to haggis, or something.
While the website is notable, given the Telegraph coverage, I am not 100% convinced that this anonymous website is necessarily the true epicentre of the boycott campaign. The boycott needs to be covered more generally.

~~My second choice after "merge" would be "keep"~~. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my second choice of "keep". I don't think there is enough for an article although I still think it is notable enough to be merged provided it is covered in a more neutral way. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that there is a move to boycott Scotland is notable. The fact that there is a website which is not even mentioned in half of the links on the page it is purported to be about shows no notability of the website. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added seven links: The Wall Street Journal, The Times, CNN, The Telegraph, Irish Examiner, Voice of Russia, The Herald, all mentioning the website and the boycott. The Ghost Army (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that the article name is in some way not NPOV but I can't immediately think of an improvement ("2009 Boycott of Scotland?"). I would also support a merge into one of the articles surrounding the Pan Am bombing and the prisoner in question. Merge into Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - the article content is notable but not capable of sustaining its own page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. There are more than enough sources available online to warrant its own article. Equal Progress (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is timely and it is a current event surrounding the release of Al Megrahi. Was the article "Freedom Fries" deleted in 2003 just because a couple of Frenchmen took offense? No it was not. Likewise, the American people are boycotting Scotland. Therefore, the event is significant enough to be encyclopedic as it has been reported in the global media around the world. The article should be kept. --Yoganate79 (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written in NPOV obviously and well balanced. Likewise, the term Boycott Scotland is well known in both the United States and Scotland. For those who think the article should be deleted, by that token, the article Freedom Fries and Cheese-eating surrender monkeys should be deleted too since the term went out of favour in the mid 2000s. Like a previous poster said, this is a timely topic. We can only surmise at this point in time whether or not the boycott will be lasting or not hold. Until then, all talk of deletion is premature. I'd give it six months to a year until tangible results can be seen in the effectiveness of the boycott. If ineffective, then I would give it consideration at that time to delete or merge into the Release of Al Megrahi article. --Yoganate79 (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are supposed to appear on Wikipedia after they become notable, not before. See WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a website that is obviously notable (the website itself lists news articles about it at http://www.boycottscotland.com/campaign.html as well as through a regular Google news search) and as the principal author of this article, I tried my best to keep it neutral. Despite that, the user nominating for deletion (CloudSurferUK) has made personal attacks and baseless accusations against me simply because I oppose the inclusion of a non-notable and non-neutral pro-conspiracy website on the external links for Pan Am Flight 103, which makes this deletion attempt a revenge response. The article as it stands is very neutral and balanced, with plenty of room for additional expansion, though hopefully it won't turn into a mess because some people are biased in favor or against. Equal Progress (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is also clear that it is about a particular website, which fulfills the Wikipedia notability requirements given the extensive news coverage of the website itself in the London Times, Telegraph, CNN, Le Figaro, and more (all of which is easily found through a simple Google search). Equal Progress (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The press coverage has been laughable, the campaign is a non-notable "bedroom" campaign, It has little to no following, the owner has been mailing its few subscribers to keep it on Wikipedia, It shows clear bias, has no basis in fact and has no real support from any serious body. It also makes no mention of the fact that the majority of press coverage has been derogatory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to stop making baseless accusations against other Wikipedia editors and maintain a civil tone per WP:NPA. Equal Progress (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see a personal attack against an editor here? Pointing out off-site canvassing is relevant, but of course will have to be backed up by forwarding such an e-mail to the closing admin if requested, and if it becomes evident here. Amalthea 11:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Accusing other editors of off-site canvassing without evidence is abusive, among the other accusations CloudSurfer has made on this page and at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103. Equal Progress (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - CloudSurferUK - your passion is appreciated - please see WP:POLE. At the moment the article features multiple citations from sources generally held to be both significant and reliable. If you feel the article doesn't represent the full story, please introduce additional citations supporting your assertions above. It's through the inclusion of multiple dissenting viewpoints that we make Wikipedia better, not through their mutual non-inclusion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with a small merge into megrahi release article but this is not worthy of its own article. I will be more than happy to supply an email backing up claims of off-site canvassing, in fact I could publish it and link to it from the Boycott Scotland Page. Nick Harding (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  The above user is CloudSurferUK. If you have any emails backing up your allegations, you would need to forward a complete copy of the email with headers to a Wikipedia administrator so that they can examine its authenticity. Equal Progress (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Nick Harding /Cloud Surfer, please see WP:Anything to declare? Thank you. The Ghost Army (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes I am CloudSurferUK and this not a multiple account its called setting Signature preferences in my account! So no, nothing to declare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudSurferUK (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage by various significant international media outlets would seem to indicate that the website "Boycott Scotland" was notable and newsworthy in and of itself. Whether the coverage was in support of the website or against it shouldn't determine the importance of the article. As matter of fact, considering the amount of debate in evidence on the internet, and in the media, solely devoted to the website itself, as well as the coverage of the 'real world' effects it has had thus far, I would not support merging it with another article, since it is important enough to retain as an article unto itself.The Ghost Army (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. There has been quite a lot of coverage of this website, but all of the coverage is tied up with a single event, and I can't see the coverage continuing once the backlash to the release has died down. I don't see any problem with the neutrality issue though. If merging is not an option, my preference would be to keep. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At most, this rates a mention in the article about the release of the Pan Am bomber. Calling for a boycott is not significant. If a boycott makes a noticeable difference (and most of them never do) that's significant. In the news now, but it won't be noticed a couple of weeks from now. At most, it will be summed up in an almanac in one sentence "There were protests, and including calls for products of Scotland to be boycotted". Yawn, boring, not encyclopedic, move on. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It apparently made enough of a difference to get officials in the Scottish government to respond to it, not to mention all the international coverage and additional political fall out. That's more than significant for it to have its own article. The sources can't be ignored. Equal Progress (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Alex Salmond responded by calling it an "online rant" hardly a notable response, its not like it was debated in parliment!, and scottish business have seen no effect, nor do they expect any, It also has not been in the news since. As Mandsford said, it will be forgotten about in a few months anyway. It's worthy as a merge into megrahi release article, nothing more. CloudSurferUK (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I very much doubt it will be forgotten when the events of the entire year are summed up, considering it was among the most visible and notable reactions of Americans to the release of the prisoner. If one wanted to describe the reactions of Americans to the release, one would first and foremost have to mention the boycott. Actually, it received more media coverage than the reactions of some American politicians. I also think it will be considered notable in Scotland's retelling of the events surrounding the release, since the boycott outraged so many Scottish people, and they spoke out against it frequently, and at length, in comments to newspapers, on forums, in blogs, and in articles in the media. To delete the article is also to delete their response to the boycott. I think it has the significance to merit its own article since it has been written about as an event in itself. As well, we can't yet know the further ramifications of the event. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mandsford. At best it could be merged to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi as a one liner. It's only significant if it can be shown to have been successful in some way. I wonder how many websites there are calling for the boycotting of Israel/US/UK/Denmark etc. etc. Ben Mac Dui 17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles normally appear in Wikipedia after the ramifications are known, not before. See WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, yes, that's true, however in this instance the article is about a website so ramifications are, as the nature of the internet dictates, ensuing and ongoing, as well as being known. The only foreseeable end to future ramifications is if the website is taken down. If this article is removed so, too, should the article about the release of the Lockerbie bomber, since future ramifications of this action are also still unknown as well. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopeadic content that is selective and partisan.

Bomberharris (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) — Bomberharris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin: Bomberharris only has a few edits. Equal Progress (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Bomberharris has only a few edits is not relevant to the argument. Boycott Scotland should feature as (at best) an inclusion into the megrahi release. Whilst it has found favour with a few americans, it has had alot of negative publicity in the UK and rest of the world. and when its all said and done, it is, and always will be a "bedroom" campaign so how can that be worthy of a full article on Wikipedia? CloudSurferUK (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bomberharris, it isn't a selective and partisan article. Five different editors have been discussing it on the discussion page and are very conscious of the fact that the article must remain entirely neutral.If you have material that you feel would make it more balanced, please do feel free to add it to the article. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is a neutrality problem here. The campaign has had a lot of negative attention in the UK and none of the obvious objections to such a silly campaign are included. Of course, this is curable and not a reason to delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, your point is taken. If you could offer links to some negative media coverage that could be added into the article it would be very much appreciated. I have looked but have so far only found opinion-based blogs and the like. Thanks! 76.69.90.43 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of AfD debate - Y'all have seen this? Telegraph - Wikipedia: 20 articles earmarked for deletion Welcome to the least exciting five minutes of fame ever. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite good coverage. It captures the flavour of what we do on AfD well without getting readers bogged down in understanding our detailed policies. It doesn't make us out to be control freaks or play on the lazy meme of Wikipedia being a willing home to random nonsense. (BTW, I have fixed the link.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent coverage. Nothing like a good AfD to help get a Wikipedia article in the news and get more people interested in editing. Equal Progress (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep due to bad rationale for nomination, Clearly a non neutral website therefore breaches WP terms for inclusion of a web site. That doesn't sound like any Wikipedia policy to me. It does sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT though. Keep due to press coverage as Dust pointed out above. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly and utterly non-notable. Vandagard (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out here that the original nomination for deletion by CloudsurferUK is based on the premise that the website, the topic of the article, is non-neutral, and not the article itself, as Squidfryerchef has noted. I'd also like to point out that those in favour of deletion include a person with few edits, and a person using two different names, and that false accusations of off-site canvassing were made on 29 September that have not been backed up, as of 3 October. This strains the credulity of the argument for deletion.The Ghost Army (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. We have been invited to decide whether the article should be deleted and we should consider all possible reasons for and against this, not just the ones given in the (very poor) deletion rationale. A poor rationale is a bad start to an AfD but it doesn't have to ruin it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I have not used two names, check above, it was changing signature preferences. Stop trying to find weak faults in the argument. The consensus is clearly in favour of deletion or merge into main al megrahi release article and nothing more. This is a debate and that is whats happening. CloudSurferUK (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advocacy contrary to WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't advocate a position on the website pro or con, so WP:NOPE. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:COATRACK on which to hang WP:LINKSPAM. No thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's no "coatrack" and no linkspam. Just an NPOV article describing the organization, and the external links are all either news stories about the boycott itself ( which should be converted to footnotes ), news stories about the release ( which can be taken out ), or to the website itself. No spam here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi - I'm not yet convinced long-term notability has been established here. Deletion would also be an option, but I think at least a mention in that article might be justified. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per most of the arguments above, or else delete per Col Warden. --John (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is well-sourced and complies with all WP guidelines. It was checked and had input from those of us over at RSN. I understand why some may have a problem with an article about a single protest website, but we leave it up to coverage in reliable sources to decide notability, which we have. The only possible outcomes are keep or merge, not delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's strange! I make it: Keep x 5; Merge x 2; Merge/Keep x 1; Merge/Delete x 1; Delete x 7 = 8 each side! Vandagard (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. It is the quality of the arguments and the ability to build consensus that matter, not the numbers on each side. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so if the the majority want it deleted or merged then it wont be? Its a debate Daniel hence the majority rules. by proxy yes it is a vote. CloudSurferUK (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia is not a democracy. The number of "votes" does not determine the results, it's the quality of the argument. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Rough consensus. Amalthea 08:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't base notability on 24-48 hours worth of media jumping on the bandwagon with a global event. Notability of a Boycott can only come from whether it has any impact or not and Boycott Scotland has had no impact at all. Also the protest claims to be backed by the american victims of pan am 103 whilst no mention of it at all is made on the VPAF103 website so support is either unacknowledged or not there at all. CloudSurferUK (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd agree that I can see why this might be suitable for deletion. Nobody seems to be noticing any effects (although how you'd detect a consumer boycott during a recession's a good question anyway). Apart from one of the Scottish governments political enemies trying to revive it via his tweed company in September, it faded away from the media in August. As regards notability, the empty Scottish and British media can be quickly filled with any old non-story during the August "silly season", so it would be easy to find lots of news sources reporting this -especially as they're none too sympathetic to the Scottish government anyway. Zagubov (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added a mention of the parody sites and a Twitter campaign denouncing the boycott, as reported in The Guardian. This is all I have been able to find in notable media sources referring to the negative press that has been mentioned in this discussion, but hopefully it will help to enhance the neutrality that some have said they thought was previously lacking. The Ghost Army (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one case of an article about a subject noteworthy and notable enough to keep. This was a huge sensation in the British media and made waves all around with everyone talking about it, and enough of a reaction to have European trade associations react to it, as well as a Scottish trade assocation take down its website as a result of the website. Those who oppose this website's inclusion in Wikipedia appear to be suffering from a definite case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is very sad, because Wikipedia is above and beyond such concerns. The article in question is most certainly neutral, very well sourced, and there are abundant, abundant sources to confirm the website's notability. Metaspheres (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that a lot of people seem to be mixing up the reaction to the release with this particular website. The reaction to the release of the Lockerbie bomber was undoubtedly huge - I am far from convinced that it was all down to this one website. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I see it the bottom line is this, for a Boycott Campaign to be "notable" surely it must A) have a signifanct impact, it hasn't, and B)receieve regular press coverage, it did a one or two days now its forgotten about. This was a knee jerk reaction with very little support(it isnt even worthy of a mention on the VPAF103 site, has received a little, but not large support in America, let alone the rest of the world. An entry into the megrahi release reation, nothing more. CloudSurferUK (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep A non-neutral website can certainly be appropriate for coverage by an article; but in any case this article is about the campaign, and only incidentally about the site. the question is whether this is significant, and there seem to be enough 3rd party sources to show that it is. But I see nothing in the news since early September, and unless there is renewed interest I think it would probably be better to merge. I am not sure about the neutrality of the article, which seems to assume that the release was wrong, & the only question was whether or not Scotland should be boycotted because of it. Obviously this can be balanced, but it would be easier to do so in the merged article. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi The prisoner release and the American official reaction were notable, and the article seems neutral. The bit I don’t get is how the website’s notable. It pops up anonymously and campaigns against the SNP government and, sure, it then gets reported in Britain’s mainly anti-SNP newspapers at a time when there's no other news to report. But after a few days, nobody can find any reliable effects they can attribute to it - the story dies. The SNP’s rivals tried to revive the issue in mid-September but it was quickly revealed to be a politically-planted news item. The Scottish/British media are so hostile to the current SNP government that they’d love a real boycott that they could blame on Salmond, MacAskill et al. The fact the press have nothing more to say about it is the real dog that didn’t bark in the night here. Zagubov (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -To something more general as has been done for other boycott insert country here websites, some of which, from checking google, appear to have considerably more public support, popularity and mentions in the media than this particular one has. I'm not confortable with the fact that the creator of the article is a single purpose account which raises questions regarding the purpose of the article. If the editor is connected with the website then it should probably be deleted as advertising. If he is not then merging with a relevant article is preferable. Wayne (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be confusing the website with the political action. Whether or not the actual boycott is notable has no bearing on whether or not this website is notable. Changing this to Boycott of Scotland due to the release of Libyan terrorist or some such title might be appropriate. Claiming that this one particular website is notable is a bit of a stretch. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since the issue is notability, and all seem to have reviewed the sources, we can go with the headcount: Five editors believe the sources are not sufficient to establish notability, while one aggregate editor believes they are (counting weak keep as 0.5 and very weak keep as 0.25). No objection to recreation if new substantial coverage is found. Sandstein 06:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Aanes

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

non-notable minor playwright, has written a couple of plays for TV. Incoherent article. Very few google hits. Does not seem to pass notability guidelines Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not assert notability. The external links are all trivial coverage, and I could not find any significant coverage searching google. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of two of the links, somebody's resume says that the worked on the play by Mr. Aanes, and somebody else mentioned someone else who worked the play by Mr. Aanes. As he is not the subject of these (beyond that he's cited as the author of said play), these can't work. The others are NY Times links for searches (which don't mean much), and then his iMDB listing - which is not a reliable source. Beyond that, there's nothing for this guy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 (article does not assert notability) and A3 (no content). Failing speedy delete, it also does not meet WP:N - the article does not establish the notability of its subject. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - google books shows some mentioning in reliable sources. New York Magazine thought he was notable enough to write about a subject he wrote.... Himalayan 11:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - that may be so, but the information's not in the article. We can only assess on what's in the article, not what might possibly be in the article in the future. Currently there's no claim of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- @ Himalayan, looking at the books, they are either not about Kirk Aanes or they are trivial coverage of Aanes, they do not establish notability. @ DustFormsWords, there is no criteria that the sources must be in the article to evaluate them. If someone brings up sources that establish notability at the AFD, we should evaluate them to see if they do establish notability even if they are not put into the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Keep May just meet requirements for creative writer: One play, The Book of Lamb is included in an anthology The Best Plays of 1993-1994‎; another, "Love thy Neighbor" was made into a film. [3] But the New York listing is just a listing & not significant for notability - It's an off-off-Broadway production, and the magazine includes all productions in NYC. The other refs are also just listings. DGG ( talk ) 12:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with DGG on this one, too - very weak keep. I think off-off Broadway is right on the edge of notability. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per DGG, because I cannot find evidence of notability beyond that one anthology and one adaptation. If we think that's enough, than the article can stand, but this cat better get to writing a bestseller. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep unreferenced does not mean unreferencable. We can absolutely consider sources that have not yet been added to the article. As DGG said, it's borderline but I think it may pass. StarM 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Off-off Broadway might make the cut, but I'd want to see more OOB plays, reviews, etc... - Vartanza (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions ignore that WP:N does require substantial coverage in reliable sources. Whether the software is good or bad does not matter under our rules, sorry. Sandstein 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JollysFastVNC

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

Non-notable software product. Haakon (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software, but that's because I didn't bother trying. Joe Chill (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You must be nuts. This is the best VNC client for the Mac, bar none. This RfD is a sign of ignorance. AshtonBenson (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is AFD. This comment is based on you thinking that it's useful and based on no guideline. Read WP:CIVIL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right, AshtonBenson! But it's not (yet) supported by the article. If you'd like to see the article stay, what you need to do is find independent, reliable secondary sources that put forth the view you're advocating, and then cite them in the article. If you do that feel free to note that you've done it here and I'll revisit my opinion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced AfD is up for a week. If this is notable and references show it in the week this is at AfD, I'm open to changing. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage has been demonstrated. whether it's the best or worst vnc is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. fails WP:N Theserialcomma (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Best VNC client" or not, we need some kind of evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Do you have any, AshtonBenson? JBsupreme (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing speedy delete, Delete - it does not pass WP:N in that it does establish its notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You must be nuts. Other VNC clients are also in wikipedia. This is one of the most modern for Mac OS X. User: Jollyjinx 21:20 29 September 2009 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Please note that "other stuff exists" is specifically not an argument against deleletion. Nor is your assertion that the product is "the most modern"; if it's not notable, or it cannot assert notability, then it fails Wikipedia's criteria. Also, speculation about other editors' mental condition is not an argument against deletion, either. Haakon (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Welcome to the Wikipedia cesspool, where armies of meatpuppets and the ability to quote WP:WHATEVER from memory will always trump real Knowledge.... AshtonBenson (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Welcome to the world of Wikipedia, where armies of editors attack everyone that disagree with them. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean to offend anybody with 'are you nuts' but I wonder if the whoever marked this has any knowledge of the VNC area on Mac OSX. There are only two free VNC clients on the Mac out there an the other one is from January 2006. So I assumed that this one IS noteable. User: Jollyjinx
Keep- As far as I can see, there are only 2 comparable players concerning VNC for Mac.[4] This and Chicken of the VNC. I can understand that there is a lack of sources. It is for the Mac, It is freeware and vnc is not a particularly mainstream activity. I found some sources after a brief search. I imagine that someone who knew the subject could improve this page. In the sea of software it may not be notable, but in its particular pond it seems to be a large-ish fish. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linnea Aaltonen

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

non-notable beauty queen. Has entered contests but has never won any. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly is pretty, but she never placed in either pageant she was in - thusly failing WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N. Crafty (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. Isn't the "delegate" claim in the article equivalent to saying she won the newer Miss Finland title, as listed in the infobox? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing speedy delete, the article does not pass WP:N as being an entrant in a beauty pageant is not inherently notable and the article does not provide multiple significant secondary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy declined. The national prizes asserted may or may not be notable--it isn't my field--but they are at least an indication of possible notability. DGG ( talk ) 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody know what the policy is on Miss World entrees? My understanding is that they are accepted on here. This article is pretty poor at present though.. Himalayan 11:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've reconsidered the matter, and decided I was being overly biased against beauty pageants. Ms Aaltonen's field is "beauty pageants", and being an entrant in Miss World is really as high as you can possibly go in that field; it constitutes a significant achievement at the apex of her professional area and as such meets WP:N. My feeling was that beauty pageants were inherently non-notable and upon reflection I don't think that's supported by current policy. Vote accordingly changed to keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article only really exists to say that she lost some competitions. Who cares? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sarkis

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

article violates WP:BLP; Back Bay Restaurant Group may be notable (article doesn't currently exist) given the number of restaurants it has, but this article of the company's founder doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own, especially the way it is currently written. Of what importance is it to know who this guy is married to? CPAScott (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes he may be notable in a certain way because he is the CEO of a 35 restaurant company BUT I can't see much notability because the said restaurant group has no article on Wikipedia. If there is no page for this restaurant group than what is the point of having an article about the CEO? Except from being CEO, he has not done many notable things in his life thus failing WP:BLP.... Moreover, this article lacks of sources/references (there is none) AND there are no sources since the writting of this article 3 YEARS AGO. Something is wrong... Finally, article seems to be written in a non-neutral way. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BBRG is a maybe, but this guy is not notable just because he runs almost 3 dozen restaurants. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP requires the immediate deletion of any unsourced statement in the biography of a living person, which in this case would result in blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've created a stub page for Back Bay Restaurant Group given its prominence in New England (about the same size as Legal Sea Foods). However, I still hold that the Charles Sarkis article should be deleted. In Legal Seafood's case the CEO, Roger Berkowitz has his own article, but the article also faced afd discussion. There it was determined that Berkowitz was notable enough given the company's notability outside of New England. In the case of BBRG, or Sarkis, himself, this is not the case. We can debate the merits of the BBRG article seperately, but as stated, my nomination for deletion of this article stands. -CPAScott (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent call, Scott. Needs more work, but it's a good start. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Harvey

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

No indication of notability, unsourced BLP, original research. Author seems to have a Conflict Of Interest, claiming to know the subject personally in the first edit summary. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable Declan Clam (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't really give much that's particularly notable. If there's more, now's the time to add it... Peridon (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hooray, somebody agrees with me! Oh, wait, not the place, sorry, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 - no assertion of notability. Failing speedy delete, the article does not pass WP:N - nothing present would pass the notability criteria, and in any event it's unsourced. Additionally, it being the biography of a living person, unsourced statements would typically be deleted under WP:BLP which in this case would result in blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparently this page has changed substantially since it was nominated for deletion, and accordingly, votes towards the end of the discussion hold more weight in borderline cases such as this. Among the most recent comments there seems to be an overall agreement that this prison is notable. Therefore, it seems consensus supports keeping the page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gefängnis Zürich

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

Prod removed by editor as 'rubbish.' I beg to differ and ask for others' opinion. My rationale for prodding this for deletion:

Stub about a non-notable building. I can find no sources that discuss the actual building, its function, its history, its architecture; its only claim to fame seems to be that Polanski is in it. That is not enough, and buildings such as these do not have inherent notability, as far as I know.

I stand by this argument, and would like the community's opinion. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. It's the main prison in Zürich, and is just as notable as any of the (extremely) many Category:Prisons in the United States. Your statements are simply hilarious. Urban XII (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your manners, please. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a disruptive nomination and abuse of the AFD process. Any prison is by definition notable, there are hundreds of articles about American prisons. Urban XII (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, prisons are not by definition notable (there's no such provision in WP:N). If there are articles about non-notable US prisons, these should be nominated for AfD instead; see WP:WAX. Sandstein 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with Sandstein) So, no, you won't mind your manners? "Rubbish" and "hilarious"--that's disruptive of civility. AfD is a normal part of Wikipedia. If notability can be established, or if there is a consensus that prisons have some kind of inherent notability, then I will either withdraw this AfD or it will close as a keep. What is the problem? If you want articles NOT to be prodded or nominated for deletion in the first place, provide reliable sources that establish the subject's importance. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article as it stands is "rubbish". If general notability can and will be established within the timeline this AFD will run I will not hesitate to change my "vote" to "keep".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. A large European city's principal jail, in operation since 1916, is almost certain to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources (such as a century's worth of the local pages of the Swiss newspaper of reference, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung) to meet WP:N. But these sources, if they exist, seem to be offline. If they are not found by the end of the AfD, the content should probably be merged into a suitable article with a larger scope, such as a list of Swiss prisons. Sandstein 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Sandstein, I was thinking the same thing--but I have not yet found any such discussion, just mentions. Good luck to you; you probably have access to better material than I do. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've now started List of prisons in Switzerland, so we've got a merge target if no sources turn up. Sandstein 21:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would think that the largest prison in the Canton of Zürich [5] would be notable, just as the largest prison in, say, Illinois would be. Just browsing Category:Prisons in Illinois, it seems we don't seem to have a problem with less important prisons there. Is this a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias? Let's be honest. The only reason this page was created is because Polanski is held there for now. That's why I said above that I would withdraw my "vote" if general notability is established (which wouldn't be a really hard task). Polanski could and should be only a side note in this article but right now it's the main "attraction".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't hate Swiss prisons. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your advise? Should I book a sweet there fore my next vacation? :)) . Just trying to bring some humor into this.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be locked up for your spelling alone! It's "suite". :) Crafty (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please lock me up. I could talk myself out of it but I won't :))The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of that you saucy wench! This AfD is serious business! :P Crafty (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Y'all just be glad I didn't book you in the Illinois state pen. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this article should need any further sources than the website of the Zürich Bureau of Prisons[6] [7]. All the information currently in the article is from the official website of Zürich correctional authorities. The Federal Correctional Institution, Pekin does also only have official sources. I've seen many similar articles on American prisons. Urban XII (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a stub article about a building the notability of which is not supported by relevant reliable sources. Crafty (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs more than a temporary resident to establish notability. It's not even notable for size so far as I can see. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article that says this prison is notable. I could not find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Merge to List of prisons in Switzerland - All it needs is a bit more detail and some citations, and I'll change to Keep. As a major prison which is almost 90 years old I'd be very surprised if it couldn't find some notability (for historic, architectural, or heritage reasons) but they're not currently in the article. I'll stick this on my watchlist and if someone more enthusiastic doesn't beat me to it I'll have a go myself later in the week. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've had a go at improving it and I can't find the sources. I still feel they must exist - prisons simply don't go 90 years without accruing notable history - but it might take a German speaker to dig them up; Google translate just isn't up to the task - it keeps translating the prison as "airport prison" which makes things difficult. Can we hang on in the hope of finding a German to give it a go? - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per this comment, I have left a request at the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board alterting them to this AfD.[8] Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major prison in a major city is notable enough. Sure, it could do with expansion and sources are likely to be in German or French but that is not a reason to delete the article. I've tagged the article with WP:LE, WP:Prisons and WP:CH and notified all three WPs of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as "the largest prison in the Canton of Zurich" [9] and nearly 100 years old. Certainly notable. SGGH ^ping! 10:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep I'm one of the German speakers (and Zurich locals) that have had a look due to this call. Yes, the percentage of incarcerated US citizenry (and resulting number of prisoners) is quite high in comparison to Swiss standards, and yes, Swiss prisons do not feature as prominently in Hollywood films as their US counterparts, but this shouldn't really count here. I'm sorry (and at the same time, quite happy) to say that prisons in Switzerland do not tend to become any bigger than this one.
However, if you mess up in Zurich, that's where you will normally be headed (no first-hand experience, though); and yes, Vitalij Kalojew did make quite a name for himself in Switzerland before he checked in, so the "just because of Polanski" argument doesn't really apply. I'm not quite sure what kind of an attestation of notability in published sources you expect (an article in a newspaper attesting the prison's notability for an internet encyclopedia? -- it's certainly not the only building of public interest in Zurich on WP). I cannot see a rationale that would make it logical to cover the many prisons in America but not the ones in Switzerland. And if neither is notable enough, what with WP:WAX and whatnot, have a try at having a few US prisons deleted first and see what the reaction would be! ;-) How cramped for space are anyway we to make it necessary to draw the line here? Trigaranus (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that news events can cause articles that should exist to come into existence is a good thing (though making them good articles is a pain). Main prison in a large city, this in of itself appears to be notable based on existence of other prison articles in the project, e.g., Massachusetts Correctional Institution - Framingham, Lansing Correctional Facility (Kansas), Darwin Correctional Centre (Australia), Chanchalguda Central Jail (Hyderabad, India), Drakenstein Correctional Centre (South Africa), Ofer Prison (Israel), Jaslyk Prison (Uzbekistan), Matrosskaya Tishina (Russia), Bastøy Prison (Norway), etc. etc. etc. --Milowent (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Milowent. mgeo talk 15:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been improved considerably since nom and I don't think deletion is still an option. Would Drmies care to withdraw? ninety:one 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article looks ok/reliable to me. This prison seems to be notable enough. I'm not sure if a better title for this would be Zurich prison or something else instead of the German name of this prison. This is the English Wikipedia and not the German. Barras (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the title, I've just created a redirect from Zuirch prison to the current title based on your comment. I guess that we should use whatever title English-language reliable sources use but I've not looked to see what that is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, you created a redirect from Zurch prison :-p Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now fixed! Redirect is now at Zurich prison rather than "Zurch prison" or "Zuirch prison" *whistles innocently*.Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major prisons are notable. This is actually a jail, not a prison--it holds primarily people awaiting trial -- and I'm not sure notability should automatically extend that far. But it seems to be the main jail for the city, & there are undoubtedly additional sources to be found about it's construction, extension, and the like. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Aakre

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

unreferenced BLP. No indication of notability. no sources (and none seem to be easily found) Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Estonian, which the review seems to be written in, but as near as I can tell, the review is not about Mari, it's about an exhibition that she was in. Granted, I could be wrong, so anyone who knows Estonian should review it. Since she's apparently not the primary subject of the review, I must say Delete, since this renders the review to being not a source we can at all use. Beyond that, we need more info on her in the way of reliable sources that show notability. Also for the note on the WP:BLP issue, as per AFL's nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N - no sources present to establish notability. Also WP:BLP demands that any uncited content on the biography of a living person be immediately removed, which in this case would result in blanking the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a member of the Estonian Artists' Union is a clear indicator that she is a nationally recognised and notable artist. Himalayan 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt say that. it means he's a professional writer in Estonia, nothing more. Doesnt imply national recognition. DGG ( talk ) 12:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at the article first, as she is an artist and not a writer - and she, not he. --Sander Säde 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the web site of the Estonian Artists' Union. [10]. It appears to be a professional association of artists with over 900 members, presumably artists of a certain quality as applications require a CV and 3 letters of recommendation, but I hardly think that's an indication of notability in the Wikipedia sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs)

Yes, they require three letters of recommendation and 2/3 support in voting ([11]) - and it is the main artists union in Estonia. I don't think notability can be asserted that way - and there appears to be no extensive coverage of her even in Estonian press, probably due her advanced age (almost all matches are simply mentions of her birthday). She was probably more notable during her heyday in 60s and 70s, that is why I support deletion now and re-creation of the article if more sources can be found. --Sander Säde 13:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a member of the Writer's Guild of Australia, but sadly that doesn't get me an article on Wikipedia. The standard is not what profession you're in or what memberships you may have, but what you've actually achieved to earn the specific and extraordinary attention of your peers or some section of the public. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this article can be significantly improved to establish notability and verify the facts in a BLP. I looked at the original references and the google translations. The fact that she is a member of the Estonian Artists' Union is not supported at by the reference given.[12] That article is about an entirely different person, Anu Raud, and Aakre is not mentioned in it at all. The second article [13] is not even a review. It merely announces a free exhibition in which she was one of ~~three~~ 12 artists. The announcement is a press release from the gallery (as can be seen from the bottom of the article). The mere fact that an article about her appears in the Estonian WP is no indication that she is notable. Voceditenore (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia - Voceditenore (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice and allow re-creation if notability is asserted and better sources provided. Right now the only inline source goes to an article which has no mention of Mari Aakre at all - so this is basically completely unsourced BLP. --Sander Säde 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Aakhus

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

Non notable writer, unreferenced BLP, unsourced from any reputable sources and none show up on Google. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No dice. Seems to be a new entrant to the world of writing. No coverage other than the books equivalent of IMDB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote to keep per investigation of others. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Has been reviewed in the Sunday NYTimes Book Review [14], about as notable coverage as books/writers get. While not 100% proof of notability, the likelihood that no other coverage exists for an NYTBR-reviewed writer is so vanishingly small that we should infer notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NYT review not quite enough. Notability may be achieved in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Meets general content requirements. Notable writer google books reveals hits including that she is a notable translator too. Like 90% of our other articles needs expansion and referencing. I do not believe that systematically going through the encyclopedia starting from aa and trying to delete anything which isn't start class as Animatronic is clearly doing is a good idea. Himalayan 11:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WorldCat[15], the writer publishes her fiction under the names of Patricia Aakhus McDowell, and Patricia McDowell -- and uses Patricia Aakus for her academic works. DGG ( talk ) 11:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you'll find a lot of her academic works in google book under Patricia A. McDowell. Himalayan 11:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all the more reason for a thorough check before nominating. time to legislate WP:BEFORE. The nom could have found this,too. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep clearly notable with minimal investigation.--Buridan (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination seems correct in this case. At least I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. And the subject does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The subject’s most widely held book in libraries, The voyage of Mael Duin's curragh, is held by only 134 libraries according to WorldCat. This book has an Amazon.com sales rank of 1,503,966. Many of the GBs entries are for catalogs of books, like the International Books in Print 2000: Subject Guide. I really do not see the strong evidence that swayed Dennis The Tiger, and that Buridan refers to.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. Has anyone read the NY Times piece? It clearly states that the novel by the subject is an adaptation of a story that has been told many times before under various titles, including The Yellow Book of Lecan.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a highly misleading summary of the review, which notes that Aakhus is presenting content never before accurately presented in English. The key language in the NYTBR reads "[I]n this version by an American teacher, writer and actress, pagan elements are properly restored and superfluous additions have been stripped away. What remains is a scholarly yet exciting and vivid rendition of the voyage of Mael Duin, one that has never before been accessible to those without fluent Old Irish. It rings true, and that's what becomes a legend most. (my italics) The Yellow Book of Lecan, mentioned as an earlier version of the story, is a 14th century manuscript including a variant version of the story, not something one might find on the bookshelves of Borders. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I accept a NYT book review as evidence of notability, whether or not they think highly of the book. they include only a small number of titles. But even if one wants another ref to confirm it, there is first, Rocky Mountain News in Gnews,[16]. Remembering that the book is 1990, there are undoubtedly others--GNews is not even approximately complete even for major US newspapers for this period. I consider Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument a good one. And in fact, using one of the standard references present in any good library, Wilson's Book Review Digest, an index to reviews in magazines, there is also a review in The Hudson Review v. 43 (Spr 1990), a well-known literary magazine. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator. A reminder to people, let's please be civil about these affairs. Non admin closure. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Aaker

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

non-notable "marketing specialist". unreferenced BLP, has written some books about marketing, but hardly that warrants coverage in an encyclopaedia. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really a CV, but it's a brief blurb here. On this, I'd focus on WP:PROF - and Mr. Aaker doesn't seem to hold to this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep per other research found. Good job. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named chair at Berkeley is a pass of WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep. Top GS cites are 2067, 1531, 1191, 1107, 973... I stopped counting after this. The cites surpass anything I have yet seen in these pages. Passes WP:Prof #1 in spades. Do the deleters know something they have not told us? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep His book Consumerism is in 1164 WorldCat libraries; Developing Business Strategies is in 1155; Strategic market management , published in 26 eds. and translated into German also, is in 1061; Marketing research and Building Strong Brands each translated into multiple languages and held in over 990 WorldCat libraries; other books; 890, 778, 605, 453, 382. [17]. There are certainly going to be reviews, which should be found and added and make up the appropriate references. This is way sufficient to show him as an authority in his field. How one can judge someone doesnt meet WP:PROF without even checking his books puzzles me. If there ever was a case for requiring WP:BEFORE, it is this reckless nomination--and some of the others in the series. I strongly suggest the nominator -- apparently a newcomer who just started today and has done nothing except nominate articles for deletion, show good faith and an awareness of the need to learn Wikipedia guidelines by withdrawing this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Ridiculous nomination. Clearly notable. Himalayan 12:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY, I withdraw this one. I have been reading your messages and I think in some ways it is six of one and half a doxen of the other. I don't like to be called ridiculous: and I agree with DGG that this is indeed notable. However, I object to the suggestion that all my nominations are "ridiculous":, as they clearly are not. I never mentioned "Prof": I just misjudged the importance of a load of books about marketing. I am trying to do the right thing, I am not nominating masses of articles each day, and I think the encyclopedia will be better for it. So yes, I show good faith and withdraw my nomination. Now you show good faith to me! Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NProtect GameGuard

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

DELETE non-notable software product which appears to be lacking in non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Somewhat notable. There might be good sources for it not working on Win7. Fix it up and remove some excess info, then see what it looks like. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Short of removing 98% of the current content I'm not sure how it can be fixed. It is relying completely on primary sources and forums, like this one: [18] JBsupreme (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you try searching for sources? According to the WP:VG google search engine, there are a few reliable sources.[19][20][21][22]. Need I say more? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although please be wary of press releases, or re-iterations of press releases, as some of these links appear to be. They don't count towards notability. Marasmusine (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. The fact it is indeed used by many pieces of software that are notable themselves should provide this with notability. Whilst the current sourcing is not strong, it still shows notability and verifies claims in the article. --Taelus (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree there currently aren't enough good sources in the article, but Google returns about 184,000 results: [23] (Yes, I know this doesn't establish notability). But if 184,000 websites talk about Gameguard, there's bound to be magazines, books, etc. out there that do the same. However, Gameguard is mainly active in Korean RPGs (I believe it's in MOST of them, actually), and I'm not in South-Korea, nor do I speak the language, which makes it difficult (for me) to find good sources. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is indeed the issue that I presume is the problem here, its notability comes from alot of non-English usage, and as such the sources out there are probably not in English. Perhaps we could attempt to find someone who speaks a relevant language to dig around for sources? It would be a shame to delete an article just because it isn't covered in depth in the western world. --Taelus (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this information very useful while I was beta testing the game Aion and petitioned for a full refund due to GameGuard being utilized. --Shawnshekari (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to INCA Internet. A lack of reliable, third party coverage (just press releases such as [24]) Extremely weak sources (almost entirely forums?). I consider the large list of "known games running GameGuard" and "known blocked applications" to be indiscriminate information. There's a small amount of verifiable information that can be included in the company article, per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Afzal

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

Unreferenced BLP, non-notable academic, very few hits on google. Doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure If the Civil College of Commerce, Rawalpindi, Pakistan and Nova College of Commerce are actually university-level institutions, he's possibly notable; if high schools, he is not. DGG ( talk ) 12:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The college is apparently affiliated with the University of Punjab and grants a B.Com degree. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would be inclined to delete, no google book hits. We have a high number of advert like ego articles about Pakistani people on here, which are like CV's. Most of them are of very dubious notability. If the nom really wants to get rid of such articles I'd recommend going through all of the Pakistani people categories... Himalayan 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a CV trying hard to be a notable BLP, which it aint. Dr. Meh 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any soruces writing about him and his academic output consists of 4 papers? -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced; WP:V applies. Sandstein 05:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madloku Ganapathi

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

The article is about a specific Ganesha idol that has been used by one particular family. List of Ganapathis (non RS) lists a Ganapathi temple in the village, but nothing about this idol. PROD was contested. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ganesha article. Wikid^as©
- If there's even one reference to this somewhere and it is covered in the Ganesha article, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but redirecting doesn't serve any purpose here.-SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified and non-notable. No sources seem to be available, and unless someone can at least verify the claims of the article even a redirect would be unjustified. Abecedare (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no redirect. There is no Wikipedia notability shown for what appears to be an idol that is important and notable to a particular family. Priyanath ^talk 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Letter Black

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

Non-notable music group lacking Ghits and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, specifically #5, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or ... important indie labels." ttonyb (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't find any sources to show notability Chzz ► 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. GlassCobra 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxheat

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

Non-notable individual with no GNEWS and lacking GHits to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction

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

Non-notable consortium; a consortium is not notable just because notable institutions are in it. Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability not established. ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are too many collaborations to have separate articles on WP. Notable achievements (if any) could justify inclusion, but I see none. As a technical detail, the article is poorly formatted. Materialscientist (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Armstrong Johnson

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

Non-notable actor Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, single purpose account of creator might indicate COI.--Derek Andrews (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some of this information seems verifiable, but am having a hard time with notability. --Milowent (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown

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

fails WP:Notability (books) Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see why this article won't develop as well as those for this author's other books.--Derek Andrews (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the author has other books that do meet the criteria of WP:Notability (books) seems rather irrelevant to this discussion. Can you articulate any reason to keep the article based on our actual notability guidelines? Dlabtot (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my initial comment on gut feeling which is now vindicated by the references (especially Wash.Post) Hullaballoo has dug up below. Given all the Ghits for the title there are likely others that will turn up. I agree that the article is in poor shape, but not that the subject is non-notable. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, speedy close. Reviewed in major publications like New Scientist [25], Washington Post [26], and the UK/London Times [27], with lots more coverage shown by Google News. Frankly, it's hard to see why this was nominated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per wolfowitz. the article as it stands is not well written, with too much attention given to the one review. but thats cleanup, not afd.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By spending just a few seconds clicking on the link for Google News, and looking through it, I found an old long established newspaper had coverage of the book. [28] Other sources are just as easy to find. Dream Focus 03:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Nicholas Gomes

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

None of the references (most of which are articles by the subject, not about him) establish notability per WP:BIO. Ghits don't help much either. ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on the above search links, and references included in the article, there seems to be only trivial coverage, consequently doesn't appear to comply with the general notability guideline. Also, concur with Ukexpat that articles written by the subject don't establish notability. PhilKnight (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sole Soul (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources. Richard (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW. Yes. And it's not even October. Tone 21:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How A Lack Of Sleep Affects A Person's Behavior

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

Prod contested on the grounds that the article helps people. Blatant original research, and already covered by Sleep disorder and Excessive daytime sleepiness. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-encyclopaedic. --Derek Andrews (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Non-notable essay; I'm not sure why speedy deletion was opposed. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The criterion invoked (test page) did not apply. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly most obvious delete ever. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several guidelines, most notably WP:OWN and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NOW, there is absolutely NO reason why it should be kept, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia has given me my daily laugh, now it can be deleted. Written By: --Milowent (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most certainly a speedy deletion candidate --CPAScott (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I won't say 'drivel', because it isn't. However, encyclopaedic it isn't either. Not a bad bit of work for a school essay, but that's not what we're about here. Peridon (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djibouti 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualifier Squad

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

The squad list for one match. Individual squad lists might be the the subject matter of news items, but they are not individually notable. Are we to have 18 such articles for each CONCACAF team? Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Djibouti national football team. This is already the subject of a merge proposal so I'm not sure why we are here. There is already a World Cup squad at the target so some work is needed to reconcile and update that list but that is an editorial matter. TerriersFan (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed target page already has a current squad on it. On what possible grounds we we want it to additionally have a 50 week old squad list? The logical consequence of the proposal to merge is that national team articles would become an almanac of old squad lists. Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It can be easily slotted into Djibouti national football team, and it's unlikely that anyone would come here looking for it. (Also, never mind 18 pages for the CONCACAF teams - there'd have to be 48 articles for all the European teams except for the already finished Group 9.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the national team page should only have the current squad listed; no need whatsoever for a seperate article. Giant Snowman 09:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already covered in team's main article, and an extremely unlikely search term -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we wouldn't have an article like this for any national team Spiderone 14:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculous, IMO. – Pee Jay 00:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Beast (née Urban myth study (media hoax September 2009))

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

Declined WP:PROD. Non-noteworthy subject; it's not even an "event". There are references, but they merely established that something happened, not that it is noteworthy. Frank | talk 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now simply because the official ABC1 website is confusing; I don't know if this is supposed to be a show or what. Also, in terms of the article, where exactly is the "Wikipedia involvement" section going? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It's a TV show that is being broadcast on a national TV channel on 30th September, it took me 30 seconds at google to establish this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclining to keep. The show (i.e., the article's subject) has certainly generated a lot of news coverage via its hoax. From The ABC website Hungry Beast appears to be a kind of journalism "reality show" show a la The Apprentice) and is due to premiere on Sept. 30 2009. See also The Sunday Telegraph, September 26, 2009. The hoax is similar to the "Alexander Stanhope St. George" hoax which was pre-publicity for a notable art installation, also involving Wikipedia. See Telectroscope, Articles for deletion/Alexander Stanhope St. George and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive422. By the way, the article has been re-written and is somewhat improved. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep entirely noteworthy event. Just because stuff happens outside America doesn't render it non-notable ftw. Crafty (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stand this could probably deleted as a news event (WP:NOTNEWS) but with the debut of the TV show on national TV happening before the standard AFD time period is over the show will most likely get some reviews/coverage of the actual show making it notable in it's own right. Keep unless the show is otherwise ignored. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - info about the hoax should be added to the page about the show. Although this could be classed as news.Cofie (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Discussions to listify and/or redirect should be made on a discussion page and outside AFD. MuZemike 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain

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

Clearly fails WP:N which demands "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"; a mention in a chronicle isn't enough. These articles contain no inline citations, so it's impossible to establish if such coverage exists. They do contain a list of references, but these seem to be general sources, not directly connected to the individual subjects. Some of the articles contain lists of events during the subjects' lifetimes, without making any connections between the events and the individuals in question. I see nothing in these articles that could not be represented much better in a list.

Furthermore, it was recently decided in a a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump that any large-scale article creation, whether by bot or not, should go through a request for approval. Granted, this decision hasn't been widely advertised, but there is little point in having such a rule if it is not followed. Lampman (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Hi there. Sorry about that. I still don't know how to make inline citations. I agree with what you say. I do hope to add more material to these articles. I just thought it best to create them first. If they fail the criteria, I guess they'll have to go. Thanks for the heads up, Fergananim (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is more, substantial information to be added to these pages, then you should do so. My concern is that there is too little individual coverage of them to warrant stand-alone articles at all. I'd suggest you create lists instead, since then there will be less demand to establish individual notability. Any additional information could fit in a separate column, after "Name", "Accession" and "Death". Lampman (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above suggestion. A list should be better, at least now. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, lists for the abbots, kings etc., and redirects from their names Declan Clam (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List and Redirect The info could be valuable - but better in a List. (Unless one of them did something extraordinary, in which case an article would, of course, be appropriate.) Peridon (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List and redirect as necessary where they can't be expanded (Maelduin of Aughrim reaches a decent stub size already). Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No he doesn't. In byte size maybe, but the article consists of: Name, Date, Succession, all of which can fit perfectly into a list. Events that took place in his lifetime; peripheral, do not establish independent notability. Lampman (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the categorization can be left on the redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all. I do not hold with these mass deletions. Each article should stand or fall on its own merits, not simply because they're part of a set of articles you happen to have taken a dislike to. There's variable quality / notability across the articles. I'm buggered if I'm going to go through all 38 merely to be able to add my voice to this discussion. There's nothing so urgent that you could not have listed them seperately or, even better, listed a specimen one or two articles before launching into a mass deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sympathy for your viewpoint, however I guess that, reading the articles, a reasonable compromise is to create a single, solid article listing all of them. Whenever one of the entries becomes large enough, a separate article can be easily created. The list would also help not disperde material. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, your laziness is on your own back, not on mine. I did go through all 38, and there was not a single bit of information that could not have been presented just as well in list form. If you have anything to present against this premise then please, go ahead (btw, there were plenty of Fergananim's articles I did not nominate, because they had potential to meet WP:N). Lampman (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but discourage this type of robotic article creation, since it is evidently problematic. These are not BLPs, which was a major concern at the batch of articles that was deleted which led to the discussion cited by the nominator. Also, these articles are all sourced (albeit robotically) and contain no material that is controversial, and notability is evidenced by the sources. Nevertheless, it is concerning that the same references were used in all of these articles and I think more care should be put into developing each article individually, rather than carelessly copy/pasting the information from one to another. Them From Space 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how notability is "evidenced by the sources". For the article on the top of this page, all we have is a mention in the Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland saying "Gillabhrenainn Ua hAnradhain, successor of Brenainn of Cluain-fearta, died". In no way does that constitute "significant coverage", which WP:N demands. The other entries are no different. Lampman (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is somehow absurd. According to our notability criteria, every single playboy playmate is notable, most of whom probably have no historic significance whatsoever, but mediaeval Irish Abbots, who must have been among the most influential Irish people of their time, aren't supposed to be notable because there simply are only a few primary source for them. Well, they simply didn't have as much media back then as we do now (what an understatement)! I really think that mediaeval Irish Abbots are certainly more notable than playboy playmates, and that these articles should be kept. For the future, I someone wants to create a set of articles like these, better try to get a general notability criteria establish at Wikipedia:Notability (people),. etc. If we have a general criteria for pornographic actors, there certainly isn't an argument against general notability criteria for mediaeval churchmen.Zara1709 (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Nobody is saying that there should be no coverage of these individuals, simply that there is no purpose in separate articles when all the information that is available on them would fit just as well into a list. If you disagree with the notability guidelines, then you have to take it up on the relevant guideline's talk page. Lampman (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omg, you most likely have misunderstood me. I didn't reason that we would need to have articles on medieval Irish abbots because we have articles on 20th century playboy playmates. LoL, what kind of reasoning would that be. What I tried to say was that we have general notability guidelines which presume that playboy playmates are notable, because for each one of them sufficient reliable sources could be found. Similarly, we should assume that for medieval Irish abbots enough reliable sources can be found, especially since we probably have enough editors who work on articles about playboy playmates, but we certainly lack editors who work on articles about medieval Irish abbots. So, if Fergananim wants to create a set of articles about mediaeval Irish abbots, let's don't give him a hard time. If you are looking for articles to delete, look at our articles about pornographic actors instead. Zara1709 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if it helps get more Playmate articles up, I will gladly spend a great deal of time on medieval abbots. And abbess. Fergananim (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I would definitely support articles on pornographic medieval abbesses. Zara: you can't wish sources into existence; as far as I'm aware, there is no other source for these individuals than a passing mention in a medieval Irish chronicle, am I right? Anyway, you seem to be the only one arguing now, I think we all agree to put this into list form. Lampman (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At closer scrutiny, the articles seem to violate WP:OR as well as WP:N. The only sources seem to be medieval chronicles, but these need to be backed up by modern, secondary sources to confirm their veracity. In the worst case, these names could be entirely apocryphal, which was not uncommon at the time. So far, the only arguments for keep have been variations of I don't like it (bundled nominations) and other stuff exists, but I have still to see anyone argue why we should keep articles that so clearly violate some of Wikipedia's most central guidelines and policies, or how they don't. Lampman (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources seem to be medieval chronicles, but these need to be backed up by modern, secondary sources to confirm their veracity. - Medieval chronicles are sources nonetheless. If there are studies putting doubts on their veridicity, they of course should be discussed, but how citing medieval sources equates OR, I can't see. Do we have a guideline or policy for the age of sources? As for the articles "clearly violating" policies and guidelines, I am perplexed. Where is such blatant violation? I simply think that the article creator should work on the articles together in a single list, and let's wait to see what comes out. No need to bash immediately newborn articles which show potential.--Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need go no further than the WP article on the Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, which says that "The reliability and usefulness of the Annals as a historical source has sometimes been questioned..." And we do have guidelines against ancient sources. WP:RS says that "some scholarly material may be outdated". I take that to mean 50-100 years at the most, not several centuries.

But look, Fergananim has agreed that this material belongs better in list form, as have a lot of contributors here. I personally would be happy to help him with formatting those lists. At least we can all agree on one thing: leave the Playmates alone! Lampman (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the annals should be used with some caution, but that is true of every historical resource. And they are accecpted as reliable by all Irish scholars. Furthermore, they are not ancient - they were compiled in the 1630's from much older sources, many of which no longer exist. In short, the Annals of the Four Masters is regarded as one of the fundamental texts for anyone wishing to engage in Irish history. Now having said that, I will convert all to a list, though leaving the more substancial ones as articles. And can we get a few pictures of Playmates to brighten up this place? Fergananim (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respect the Brenainns. Don't delete, just merge into the appropriate lists - like Abbot of Clonfert and so on. If these little articles are only going to consist of xxx mac xx, King of xxx, died xxx or xxx then they should be combined into lists. It is easier for everyone then. When they get bigger they can easily be daughtered off.--Breandán MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List and Redirect. Many of these articles only contain the name and dates of each abbot, but nothing more. Until there is more information on any of the abbots, the articles should be redirected to Abbot of Clonfert. - Scrivener-uki (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Redirect Separate articles for each is unnecessary when they're so short. No comment on the notability standards for Playmates. :P GlassCobra 23:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fergananim speaks

Hi boys and girls.

As I said, I put these up so that more could be added to each article at a later point.

Having reviewed other, published sources, since yesterday, I now agree that there may not be much to add to some of them. Yet published sources do exist; they are just not easily available.

However, I will abide by whatever decision is taken. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: I have plenty of time for Playmates and porn stars, myself. Fergananim (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fergananim, to start with I personally suggest to create a single article/list and merge all content therein. Find sources which support the list : -that is, a source that lists them and says who they are. From that, you have a good startpoint to improve your content. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but what is your position on Playmates? Fergananim (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. They should stay. Like probably your subjects, too. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Fergananim (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these (like Maelduin of Aughrim) are already long enough to stand as stubs. The rest - for example, Cethernach ua Ermono is barely even a sentence fragment - should be redirects to a list. DS (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at some of them, mention in a standard historical chronicle that someone is in a position that is ordinarily considered notable, such as an abbot, is sufficient. almost always more can be said, as for Mughron Ua Níoc, for there are multiple good secondary sources dealing with this period of history. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monit

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

Software with no assertion of notability. When googling. make sure you add the "-monitor*" string. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

monit is a system monitoring application. Modifying the search in that way does exclude "false positives," but it also excludes positives (even the monit website)--Karnesky (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete unsourced, and this does not look ready for prime time. Miami33139 (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This doesn't even assert notability let alone hint at non-trivial coverage from a reliable third party. JBsupreme (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Karnesky (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive coverage in:
- Adelstein, Tom; Bill Lubanovic (2007-03-01). "Safeguarding a Linux Webserver". Linux system administration. O'Reilly Media, Inc. pp. 97–102. ISBN 9780596009526.

and other sources. --Karnesky (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous sources, actively used software, e.g. Linux magazine and IBM references in 2009. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non trivial significant coverage, being talked about in some how-to guide is not significant. Triplestop x3 17:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There were no arguments for deletion aside from the nom. Any other non-deletion action can be discussed on the talk page and outside this AFD. MuZemike 01:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Day

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

"Hispanic Day" is not an independent holiday in Spain or anywhere else. Almost all google hits are for unconnected celebrations in places where Hispanics are a minority, such as the US and Canada. Otherwise "Hispanic Day" is an infrequently-used translation for "Día de la Hispanidad", which is another name for "Día de la Raza", the holiday commemorating Columbus' arrival in the Americas on October 12 and known in the US as Columbus Day. There's nothing here that can't be discussed better at Columbus day, where all the Columbus celebrations are discussed, and no citations have been added after nearly two years. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to National Holiday (Spain). Delete the redirect, as it would be confusing because of the observances in Canada and the US. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, such a move will require a lot of interwiki cleanup, better left to bots. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "National Holiday" is no less rarely used for this holiday than "Hispanic Day". There is a "Fiesta Nacional de España", but that is largely synonymous with Día de la Raza, being celebrated on the same day and for the same purpose.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I proposed "National Holiday" because it is a literal translation of "Fiesta Nacional." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with either the deletion or merging of the content. While Columbus Day is more about Día de la Raza as celebrated in The Americas, the Spanish National Day is, well, the domestic National Day as celebrated in Spain, which is obviously a much more specific celebration and, like any other National Day, deserves its space. Even though they are hold on the same day and celebrate the same fact (can't see the forest for the trees?), Columbus Day and the National Day of Spain are clearly separate concepts and celebrations not overlapping. That is why merging would be very incorrect, let alone deletion.

This said, I see no problem in renaming the article if someone has a better name. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 21:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some evidence of this, as none has been presented over the last two years. A Google Books search for "Hispanic Day"-wikipedia reveals that the term "Hispanic Day" is not tied to Spain. A search for "Dia de la Hispanidad" shows that this Spanish phrase is just another name for Dia de la Raza/Columbus Day, and is not only used in Spain. "National Holiday"+Spain is uninstructive. "Fiesta Nacional"+Spain turns up more hits for bullfighting than for anything. "National Day"+Spain gives some more relevant results, but nothing really shows that the holiday needs its own separate page. This book shows that Spain's "National Day" was the international celebration known as el Día de la Hispanidad until the name was changed in 1987; this book (p. 253) indicates that the "national day" is not widely celebrated in Spain and has virtually nothing to distinguish it from the international Columbus celebrations held on the same day and for the same purpose.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for sources, here is the Spanish Minister of Labour official holiday list (only the three latest years shown)

[29]

Translation from the 'Características' tag (regional holidays aside) in any case, Christmas Day, New Year's Day, May 1st (Labour Day) and October 12 as Spain's National Holiday (Fiesta Nacional de España) will be observed as national holidays

So, in regard to that line you pull up from somewhere stating that "is not widely celebrated in Spain", I would like you to find an open office in Spain on October 12th. Dont bother: you'd find none, because it's a serious holiday (unlike in the Americas).

Here is the Ministry of Defence microsite dedicated to the upcoming National Holiday 2009

[30]

You may notice that it is in Spanish and all the Spanish regional languages, but not in English...does that talk to you? if it was celebrated in Spain as a sort of international latino day (as it happens in the Americas), it would have the correspondent English translation, right? But the thing is that this is celebrated in Spain as a domestic holiday and, as it happens, in Spain they dont count English as a national language.

Arent these still not quoted enough nor specific enough to Spain for you to accept that October 12th is not exactly the same in the Americas than in Spain?

As a side note, it is just so self-evident that it is Spain's National Day and that, as such, it has specific Spain's only value (see the interwikis in this regard, too) that I still really can't see the point in your fixation to merge this article. You are a deletionist? Fine (I am partial to that line myself) but I think you are barking at the wrong tree here MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 16:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is the article's name is what bothers the most our nominator. In this regard, I repeat that I see no problem in renaming the article, perhaps to Spain's National Holiday (to match the official name per the Minister of Labour "Fiesta Nacional de España") or something alike.

Then it would be made clear in the article that Spain's National Day is held to celebrate what elsewhere in the Americas is Columbus Day. The former is the Spanish National Day Holiday, while the latter is basically a folkloric holiday or, in some country, also an observed holiday, but without any National Day character whatsoever. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is absence of any reliable, published sources, which are required to verify the information. You will have to provide some if you want to support your point of view. I have provided some sources that demonstrate the opposite: namely, they show that Spain's "National Day" is not enthusiastically celebrated and is just a fairly recent officialization of the international holiday. Meaning, that though this has been "National Day" since 1987, people do not widely engage in any substantial nationalist activity or patriotic celebrations, with the exception of the military parade in Madrid. I have added a section on Spain to Columbus Day#Spain, which includes material referenced to the sources I found above. I tried to give a clear summary of the history of the day in Spain. The problem with having a separate article for Spain's "Fiesta Nacional" is that Spain has had several "national days" in the course of its history, depending on who was in power at the time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the very first day you started this I still dont get what do you want to verify. Is it the fact that on Oct. 12 Spain celebrates its National Day? Is it that there is aerobatics, a parade in front of the King and the Prime Minister, authorities, ambassadors and else? Is it that it is the equivalent of a federal holiday (may I use US terms, which you seem to know better). Is that what you want to verify?

If so, then I would like to verify why your thing to delete this article on the face of three other editors (myself included) not agreeing.

On the other side, what you see as a problem to create an article for "Fiesta Nacional" or whatever name we may find, I regard it as a reason to create this article.

If we have such an article, we could summarize there which had been the various national days in Spain over time and which is the national day now. On the face of comments so far other than nominator's being against deletion, if no one else opposes, I will proceed to create this article. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. All challenged information needs to be reliably sourced so that it can be verified; whether you believe it's "true" doesn't matter at all. None of this material is cited to reliable sources, despite repeated requests for two years. The reliable sources found so far show, among other evidence, shows that (1) there is no independent holiday called "Hispanic Day" in Spain or elsewhere, that (2) the term "Hispanic Day" is not particularly connected to Spain, or even to October 12, and that (3) the declaration of Spain's Fiesta Nacional as October 12 was just the government's effort to turn the long-established international Columbus Day into a national holiday; it did not result in the creation of something new (or very popular). There is currently a section at Columbus Day#Spain that includes information on Spain's October 12 Fiesta Nacional, and it is all sourced to reliable publications. If you want to create an article on the history of Spain's ever-changing "National Day", more power to you, but please follow policy and cite your sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, per se - I don't think the information in this article should be destroyed. It's fine with me to have it sit around unreferenced (as are many, many pieces of information in the encyclopedia) until someone makes a good-faith effort to find sources confirming (or not) the claims made. The assistance of a Spanish-speaking editor would be helpful. If not merged with Columbus Day (I can see arguments for and against; each location seems to give its own meaning to the same holiday by different names), then the name should be the English translation of whatever the most common Spanish name for the holiday as celebrated in Spain. -- Beland (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with "Día de la Raza", as noted in nom. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shatanjiw Das Sharma

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

Non-notable, as the subject fails WP:PROF. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Scholar seems to be unaware of this man's existence, and no third-party references are included in the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reference to him anywhere I could find, as per WP:N. AP1787 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some S D Sharmas with high GS cites but they do not appear to be this subject. Please correct me if wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 23:49, 1 October 2009 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) deleted "Aberra Molla" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aberra Molla (2nd nomination), plus Aberra Molla himself blanking the page) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aberra Molla

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

A vanity autobiography (as also, it would appear, is the WP-am article); now that the self-aggrandisement has been removed, there's nothing notable left. I wouldn't mind a stub about such a person, if it weren't for the aggressive egotistical nonsense in creating it himself. In the previous AfD, one editor said that Aberra Molla is notable in the Ethiopian community; AFAIK there is a philanthropist named Aberra Molla who is notable, but is a different person from the pretender to having invented Amharic wordprocessing. kwami (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ethiopic.com/advances.htm; no mention of him being a veterinarian. Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is not his claim to fame. But it would appear to be factual (AFAIK that patent actually is his), whereas his claims to fame appear to have been falsified, or at least exaggerated beyond credibility. So, if the only verifiable thing about him is not considered notable by the man himself, is it notable for us? kwami (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting only on the stub that exists: This: [CITATION] Colostral immunoglobulin absorption in intubated and bottle-fed calves

A Molla - 1977 - Colorado State University

Appears to be a vet patent from Colorado State to A Molla, so actually I kind of reverse what I previously said. Regardless, I emailed him. If he cares he'll post on this page. Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also this: http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&lr=&vid=USPAT4501816&id=iGw4AAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=%22Aberra+Molla%22&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q=%22Aberra%20Molla%22&f=false (again vet. patent in CO to A Molla). Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ Neutral. The article needs serious verification by someone proficient in Amharic and I am not sure of what to think of the discusson above. There are sources indicating that he,indeed, contributed to Amharic Unicode inclusion [31]. I don't know if it's enough for inclusion but at least the issue needs clarification. If there is a case of WP:FRANKIE, as suggested above, it needs to be disentagled before taking any decision. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: All references to his (possible) Unicode contributions have been wiped out in the article. What is evidence for sources being wrong in such claims, and why has the paragraph on his computer work been deleted?--Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all claims that could not be verified. His own site admits he never actually finished, published, or marketed anything for Amharic word processing; his claim has been that the Unicode consortium stole his work. The people I've talked to who've worked on Amharic wordprocessing say he's a "kook" and a "nut case", and that if anyone contradicts his claims he launches bizarre vitriolic personal attacks. (I'm not sure how private I should keep an email that says "Because his claims are so outrageous, slanderous, his logic twisted and ridiculous no one knows if he's actually done anything of note", but can send a copy privately to WP if needed.) The source you cite is on Molla's own website; he notes it was copied from ethiopianmillennium.com, but when I made a search of his name at that site last AfD there were zero hits. However, looking through it again, I dug it up here.[32] So that's better, though it's not been researched by that website, and would appear to only be the wording of the nomination by one Seifu Abdi. It does seem a bit odd - he was nominated for "Ethiopian of the millennium" for a font and perhaps keyboard that he never finished? And look at the claims that are made:

"he succeeded in 1990 in standardizing Ethiopic and caused its inclusion in Unicode"

- this would appear to be false. Unicode gives him no credit whatsoever, and AFAIK he never even submitted anything to Unicode.

"recognition in 1990 by the Ethiopian Research Council for computerizing Ethiopic and revolutionizing the Geez script."

- I'd like to see that. He certainly did nothing at all to "revolutionize" Ge'ez, or to change it at all for that matter.

"Dr. Aberra is also deservingly credited with being the father of Ethiopic."

What? Is he now claiming to have created the script itself?

"His successful innovative work has meant that Ethiopians can now and will in the future communicate in their native langue using computer devices."

Again, per his website he never actually finished anything for anyone else to use.

"Ethiopians are grateful to him"

This would strike me as being a vanity nomination much like his WP article, for all we know made by Molla himself under an alias, or by a friend of his. (Not that it means anything much, but a Google search of Seifu Abdi only turns up this nomination.) kwami (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your explanation, it seems convincing. I remove my !vote, and I'd suggest you notice some Wikiproject related to Ethiopia, African languages or similar, just for the sake of reaching informed consensus. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, he is mentioned at List of veterinarians and List of Ethiopian Americans, so it's not like he isn't even mentioned; I just don't think he deserves his own article, esp. since he created it as an exaggerated vanity page. kwami (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If he isn't worthy of an article, he should not be in the above lists, either. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As the guy who looks after the Ethiopia-related articles, I've been aware of this one for some time, but have not acted on it because (1) I've learned the hard way that many Ethiopia-related topics which look to be sure candidates for deletion are, on further research, actually notable; & (2) I admit that I am an inclusionist, & having this article doesn't hurt anything. That said, Kwamikagami makes a persuasive case for its deletion, & if this discussion is closed as a delete I'm not doing to object. -- llywrch (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Kwami too, some mention of him somewhere in the encyclopedia in his field of study is approprirate but I don't think he qualifies for a biographical article about his whole life as such... I would lean towards delete because I think of it as would it be damaging to wikipedia if we lost this article...Probably not... Himalayan 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molla blanked most of the article here,[33] which (blanking) I've restored as I think a person should have some say in such things. (It was, after all, only there to begin with because he wrote it.) He's also blanked the AfD's - is this maybe his way of saying he doesn't want a debate? kwami (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the person pushing us to keep the article is likely the subject himself Mr. Molla, then it makes it clear that we should delete. Acting in self-interest on here is not acceptable and we are not a forum to promote and flatter yourself. I'd like to see what a fluent language speaker has to say about this subject who is neutral. Himalayan 17:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the previous AfD, this editor ID'd himself as such. He's reduced his autobio to the single line that he's an Ethiopian vet living in the US, birth date, and Amharic spelling of his name. That's hardly even a stub, and I've copied it to List of Ethiopian Americans. kwami (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With [edit], he's deleted all content of the article, even the link to WP-am. Since I doubt anyone would argue that he shouldn't be able to delete his own bio if he so chooses, I'm going to go ahead and delete the article name. kwami (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I argue vehemently. Deleting your own bio without serious reasons to do so is a blatant violation of WP:COI. Now the article was next to useless and in a wrecked state, but technically this is a serious disruption of the AfD process and of conflict of interest. Since this time I don't disagree too much with the outcome, I won't ask delrev of something like that, but I hope this never happens again. Kwami, please refrain to do so in the future without AfD consensus. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In this case, however, it was also the subject who wrote the article. It wasn't as if he had deleted someone else's work. kwami (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough too, agree :) I would non-admin close this, but it seems a too weird AfD to feel free to do that. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that the one "keep" !vote is by a confirmed sock puppet of User:Zingostar with the other just a copypaste. MuZemike 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameta Camera

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

{{{Delete. zero ghits, non notable}}} Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per minimum establishment of notability per sources.--Judo112 (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. This is just a advert for a business. The nobibility is from a business magazine which promotes success and is not an neutral view RichardLowther (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per minimum establishment of notability per sources

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused Just what is the notability? It's a business that grew larger when it went online. Nothing special or notable in that - lots of other business have done the same but don't have a wikipedia page. RichardLowther (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable camera shop. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemash

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

Inconsistent article. At first WP:NEO would apply, as it defines a WP:NN neologism. But as you read on, the article seems to become advertising for a webshow. I say delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. - RUL3R^*trolling_*vandalism 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how any of the references relate to this concept. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with both the nom and Blanchardb. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Quantpole (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delves

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

This article (Delves) is a duplicate of Delves Lane, and one needs to be deleted. Delves Lane is the more complete article. There is some confusion as streetmaps shows the lcation as Delves, but google has many hits for Delves Lane etc. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect one or the other. It's really weird, as the Ordnance Survey map has it as Delves at one resolution and Delves Lane at another! ([34] vs [35]). Either way, a redirect is fine in this instance, and would suggest that we don't need to do a full AfD on it ,if the nominator concurs. Quantpole (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close and redirect. I can't see anything worth arguing over here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As nominator I agree with that and will do it immediately; and would have done that initially if I had thought more carefully about it. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Military logistics. Merge seems like the appropriate thing to do here. If this needs to be spun out in the future, that is fine. NW (Talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distance in military affairs

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

The article doesn't seem to belong in an encyclopedia. It's has both elements of original research and a debate. The topic is fairly esoteric. It's doubtful anyone would do a search for "distance in military affairs". It seems to belong to some textbook or book on military theory or something more dedicated to warfare than Wikipedia. -Comatose51 (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It surely could use some expert attention, and perhaps an expert might suggest somewhere this text might be selectively merged to. But it appears to be a valid subject in military logistics or tactics. Because Wikipedia is not paper, we can have articles on relatively recondite aspects of a subject. (And whaddya mean, Wikipedia is not "dedicated to warfare"? We do it all the time here at AfD.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly esoteic, but definately encyclopaedic. wrt 'can't imagine someone searching for it', it could be linked to from other articles? on battles, say? or maybe on less esoteric units/tactics that only make sense because they gain/exploit/nullify-the-significance-of/whatever distance? --Arkelweis (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions. You two are definitely right. How can we bring more attention to this topic for better editing and then merging into a larger article? -Comatose51 (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
search for something like 'gun', go to talk page, find bit that says "this has been deemed a 'good article' by wikiproject military stuff", click that link, find relevent wikiproject, mention it on their project talk page, wait for people who presumably know alot about wikipedia's military coverage to come along ;-) At least, i think that's how it's done --Arkelweis (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - This was a hard one. The need to keep a military unit supplied over long distances, especially in difficult terrain, such as a desert or jungle, is one of the major problems faced by any military and one that will probably never be non-notable. Given this, and the fact that the article has sources, it should be kept. However, that said, it really needs renaming to something that isn't so...odd. But for the life of me I can't think of anything. Skinny87 (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ALR's point about putting anything like this under military logistics is an excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of. Therefore, changing my vote to Delete. Skinny87 (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete reads like essay, a discussion of a subject rather than information on a subject. Although linked from several articles, links are in "see also" sections.
delete fails to sustain notability; concept is referenced through a single recent source; not contextualised in the discipline of military science's work on exertion of force: neologism. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On balance I would delete. The concept of sustainment at range is a very clear field of naval and military study, although I don't see this as a valid search term. The issue is more likely to be discussed meaningfully under military logistics or expeditionary warfare where the point is the military effect, not one of a number of challenges that the J4/ J5 teams have to deal with. There is a very clear style issue as well; this is a personal essay from someone in basic logs training. ALR (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails to justify a separate article from the subject of logistics Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment to all those suggesting deletion for reasons similar to the above, why not merge into logistics instead of deleting? --Arkelweis (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the point is not keep the words at all costs... there is no real context and a collection of bland statements.

ALR (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in fact, our policy to preserve good faith contributions of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worth highlighting that the guidance is the preservation of information not words.

ALR (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two reasons to maintain a page on this subject area. First, it is of considerable notability. It is clear that there is an academic, as well as military debate in this area, affecting executive level decision making. The second reason is that even if the attempt were made to merge this into another page, it would be difficult to so. It is evidently not solely about logistics but also about how distance is related to the actual use of military force. As such it is difficult to look at it as anything other than a separate subject in its own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekfire10 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge any remaining material to military logistics. Buckshot06(prof) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyclopaedic and ALR, with a nod to Greekfire10. While at heart I like the concept of this article, when I actually read through it a few times, I find myself mentally trimming it down to... nothing. The concept might have notability, but none of this is - and without salient material, the notability foundation disappears. The bulk of the article discusses a minor point of a probably minor topic. Bits and pieces can be put into logistics, as already recommended. Tan | 39 03:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I did consider WP:SMERGE to Military logistics, but as Tan notes there's little actual content. I think the problem might be that the concept is intuitive so, when there's need for dissection, it's normally discussed in context in individual articles. EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should be trying to broaden knowledge available on Wikipedia. I would worry that something is deleted for the reason that it is 'not understood'. It is probably best to look back at the original sources.--BundoranSands (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly understood, it's just written like an essay, and whatever is useable in it would be better under logistics or somesuch. Skinny87 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about style. Had a look through the page again. Says that the importance of distance was questioned at presidential level and public policy was based upon it. To be sure, I am not American, but that does seem rather notable. Makes me less inclined to think that this can be merged into another page on military logistics.--BundoranSands (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It surely needs further work but I agree with BundoranSands that there is notability from the Bush administration's use of declining importance for distance as an argument for withdrawal from forward bases. It does not get much more notable than that. There is room for expansion of this page.--Greekfire10 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, whilst I'm not a Loggie I am a staff trained and experienced officer with J3, J4 and J5 experience. Whilst the subject of sustainment at range is a valid topic, this is not really an adequate contribution to the debate. There are very clear doctrinal points; the purpose of expeditionary operations is support to foreign policy by military means. That can be exercised through the ability to extend effect from the base. The base is either the homeland or by the establishment of basing facilities in strategically significant locations.

If we consider the sources used in this article, we have something from the 1960s that is referred to, but no extracts are provided. That was written in the context of the cold war, two dominant political blocs facing off across a well defined start line and conducting proxy operations. It's then contrasted with a source that talks about 'trade policy and attempts to apply that to military sustainment. Trade is relevant in this context as much sustainment is done using locally purchased materiel or support, but the main impact there is from currency values and treasury effect, how much is the dollar worth in the local economy?

Current military operations are conducted at range, against a non-state OPFOR that is challenging to identify and pretty fluid in terms of C2 and sustainment. That puts a very different context on the nature of military operations, bearing in mind that the doctrinal effort is aimed at the establishment of a stable state apparatus, rather than military domination of the environment. The military effort is intended to support the estblishment of Rule of Law, Access to Justice and Security Sector Development activities.

The originator of this article has also created a couple of others, with similarly shaky foundations and a pretty dubious understanding of the topic.

ALR (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can safely say that I am no less experienced than ALR on this matter. However, I will not use condescension to argue my case.

I get the feeling that there might be a split here between Americans and non-Americans. I am British myself and things can look different from the viewpoint of a smaller country.

I can assure anyone on this discussion that the page contains no original research.

I will address ALR's points. Firstly, extracts from Kenneth Boulding are already on the page. He is an early writer on the concept of distance in military affairs. If this is insufficient I can add more.

Secondly, Boulding did indeed write during the Cold War. And yes, US forces are engaged in counterinsurgency operations at the present time. That is actually highly relevant to the debate. Distance has become less important to American military forces under such circumstances. However, the argument put by Webb points out that this must be seen as temporary. Great powers cannot always assume they will have the luxury of being great powers. Opponents will rise - perhaps China, Russia. Given our history, we Brits are familiar with this.

War is of course competitive. The fact of facing opponents who are not equivalently resourced, like the Taliban, causes the competitive impetus to procure more supply than the enemy to be reduced. Economies of scale cannot be taken advantage of and unit costs rise. As a result, the cost of transport becomes less of an issue. That's the United States today. But bring back equivalently sized opponents and distance will resume its importance.

As for the comparison with the civilian world. That too is relevant. Defence does not exist in a bubble. Many items used in war can equally be used in civilian life. In addition to this, the fundamentals of manufacturing tanks or televisions are much the same - the more you produce the greater the economies of scale and the lower the price. You might be surprised to realise that military procurement costs can be much the same as civilian if produced in sufficient quantities. It's just that the US does not have any equivalently sized opponents to fight.

I must say that I did look at integrating this material into an existing page but it simply does not fit. Distance is a separate concept in its own right.

I do bear responsibility if the page seems essay like. I am prepared to work on it and am happy to act on any suggestions. I will not be able to do anything over the weekend but will take any appropriate action a.s.a.p.--ShiningTor (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the content but how esoteric the material is that made me suggest this for deletion. Would you consider editing it so it's more accessible for people and then merging into an article on logistics? The content is fine but I don't see how it can get the exposure the way it is right now. Comatose51 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's becoming clear that much of this is original research inasmuch as it cherry picks academic work and attempts to analyse it to support a hypothesis that is not stated.. There may be an argument for an article consolidating several of the articles that you created into one coherent whole. At the moment they're all pretty much your own analysis, rather than reportage of the existing analysis. I would argue that distance per se has not become less important, but the impact of sustainment at range is the key point.

From the above it appears that the topic is more about the economics of military equipment and materiel procurement, with the posture of the force discussed being a factor. The posture is where the distance to deliver over is relevant. Once the state identifies what type of employment it wants for its military then the equipment profile, force structure, training, development and career development.

I hope that gives some fel for the potential shape of a future article that is less vulnerable to deletion, as many of these are.

ALR (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic might best be merged into a place such as Military strategy#Principles but that is not a matter for AFD. Discussion at the article's talk page is required before bringing it here. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Aviation

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

This appears to be an article created solely for advertising purposes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable subject, Spam article, no references provided. - Ahunt (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3 Pedro : Chat 08:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the Forbidden City (1963 film)

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

This article is a GIGANTIC rip on Inside the Forbidden City (1965 film). I am content in saying that after visiting the two "IMBD listings" (which both led to the 1965 version, that the 1963 one does NOT exist. I have copyed all the info into the 1965 version's talk oage so any neded info can be salvaged and used. Otherwise, it is a waste of space.--Coin945 (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like you're right, but you've got to be careful about copying info over. If it is used, then the history isn't there to see who wrote the material, which breaches our license. Quantpole (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 blatant misrepresentation of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oh man this is just wrong. Waste of space is right! JBsupreme (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Carter\'s Fifth studio album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aaron Carter\'s Fifth studio album

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

Rumored album with no name and no sources. Fails WP:V and WP:HAMMER. Typos in name make this an unlikely search term, so redirecting doesn't make sense. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER, do I need to say any more? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:HAMMER could have been written specifically for this article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Come on; the article itself says there isn't any information available for it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability.--Stormbay (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This was made for the WP:HAMMER, it seems. talking birds 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there's been a more obvious case for the Wp:HAMMER, I have yet to see it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It also seems to be snowing. Even though it's not yet October. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Act Like You Might Know

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

Completely unremarkable album from unremarkable rapper Chuggo. (The previously deleted article Chuggo should have been deleted at the recent AfD, but squeaked by as "no consensus"). Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSIC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. At first I was going to suggest keeping it because of a review in Exclaim, but after following the link I discovered that the review there is actually about the artist with only fleeting mentions of the album itself. Couldn't find any other reliable Ghits other than a few mp3 downloads. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Anthony

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

Unnotable, unreferenced biography. It looks like this article was previously deleted (see User talk:Fearstripped) and recreated Aug 28. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Difficult term to Google for, but I did and I couldn't find anything about him at all. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. reads like a resume. Edward321 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep

AfDs for this article:

Dead by April

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

Non-notable band, fails Wikipedia:Notability -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The only place where I could find a review of the band's material is on Sputnik Music, but that website has a mix of professional and non-professional reviews. If it can be determined the reviews of the band there are indeed professional, I'd say keep; if not, delete. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there an admin around that can compare how the old page was (before it was speedy deleted) to how it is now? Thanks :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text is entirely different; the deleted version was promotional in tone, and even referred to the band by saying "we". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple articles on other-language Wikipedias; the Swedish article at least has a third-party source, this article from TV4. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It could be that coverage mainly consists of Swedish-language sources, but I have no problems in finding reviews and articles about them in regular Swedish press, such as here in Expressen, here in Helsingborgs Dagblad and here in Dala-Demokraten. Tomas e (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if there are this many third-party sources it is notable, and as I can see I was the only person advocating delete? I would like to withdraw my nomination, thanks :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: see Tom above - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus to keep, AfD withdrawn by nominator Bettia (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Northern Ireland

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

The article appears to serve no purpose other than that of a category, and a category already exists for this Mooretwin (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category is "Category:Northern Irish football clubs", which is much more comprehensive and up-to-date than the article, requires no maintenance, and is therefore always going to be up-to-date. Mooretwin (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a plausible list to me - it's not crufty, it's not excessively difficult to maintain, and it has an advantage over the category in that the teams can be listed by league / level - in fact, I would reckon it could be expanded to Featured List status relatively easily. Bettia (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, list is valid, and within the keeping of other similar lists here at Wikipedia. Tfz 14:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a useful list. It is easy to maintain (as we should only include clubs notable enough for an article), and we can include additional information not found in the category such as date of formation, the league they play in, home town etc. Giant Snowman 14:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect redirect article to Category:Northern Irish football clubs as per nominator's observations --Arkelweis (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- change to Keep, as per Scog's argument below --Arkelweis (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-defined, useful, not excessively difficult to maintain. Also, the fact that similar material is covered by a category doesn't preclude us from having a list (or vice versa), as they serve different purposes, as explained at much greater length at WP:CLN. Scog (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - serves a complimentary role to the category. As a BTW I am wondering about the notability of some of the junior clubs. TerriersFan (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is part of a campaign by Mooretwin to use the term Northern Irish instead of ...from Northern Ireland or ...in Northern Ireland. BigDunc 08:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Er, no it's not. My reasoning is given above and applies regardless of the article name or the category name. (Ironically, the only campaign in existence is one by those seeking to purge the term "Northern Irish"!) Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal - can this request be withdrawn? There is clearly no consensus to delete it. I just wonder who is going to keep the article up to date?? Mooretwin (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can withdraw it for you. Considering clubs only get promoted/relegated once a year, it shouldn't be too difficult to maintain. Bettia (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitucus

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

This seems to be a complete hoax. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly delete. Blatant hoaxes like this can be just prodded, right? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. "Biticus hindu" and "biticus shiva" result in zero Google hits. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to add a warning tag to the creator's talk page, but I skipped it because s/he created it back in March 2006 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3. It is a hoax and deserves to get out soon. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headfucking

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced, fictitious sexual practice, falling under the category of WP:NOT (dictionary of mythical sexual practices), illustration notwithstanding... Research shows quite a range of terms commonly used, most seeming to veer toward mindfuck. Delete as a not notable neologism, which fails WP:V and WP:RS. I can't wait to see the comments on this one. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating disambiguation page:

I wish this was true. I cannot tell you how much I wish this was legit. I would dearly love to see this reach FA status. On the Main Page, professionally offended types wailing about the moral depravity of it all. Ah well, I suppose we had our moment. Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sexual fiction doesn't fall under the category of WP:NOT (where do you see that on that WP:NOT page?) I agree it needs to be improved and sourced but the (old) illustration itself proves this is kind of a fantasy that has been invented long ago! --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: maybe we can merge it into List of sex positions (where other fictitious sex acts are already listed, such as DVDA and autocunnilingus) and then redirect Headfucking to the disambiguation page I'd also created Headfuck. --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 12:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we see that on the WP:NOT page? How about the section that says Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought? Anyway, snow delete because the fact that the article describes it as a fictitious sexual practice pretty much sums up WP:MADEUP (by the way, it sounds very painful). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent it myself so it has nothing to do with WP:MADEUP or with the rule of "original thought". --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADEUP is about things 'you or your friends' made up: stuff that hasn't received any significant coverage. Simply being fictitious is by no means a bar to inclusion. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "sexual fiction", this is a fictitious sexual practice. "Fantasies" are not notable unless they have been discussed at length by reliable third party sources. Urban dictionary is not considered a reliable source. Merging this with List of sex positions would not be helpful, since it isn't a sexual position in the real world, and hasn't received any significant coverage except as an abstract expression. It is not notable as a "neologism", not notable as a "sexual act", and not notable as a "fantasy." --OliverTwisted^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not: see my comment below: there's a video, proving it's not a fictitious sexual practice. --Arkelweis (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One dubious occurrence possibly qualifies for Ripley's Believe It Or Not, but certainly doesn't lend notability or credibility to keeping the article on Wikipedia. Also, the recent edit you made to Headfucking taints the accuracy of the inline citation. Even the Urban dictionary doesn't claim that it's "rare." I suggest that it would be best for you to change the "rare" verbage, or provide a reliable source (not including a porn video link), or it will be removed as a "dubious and unsourced claim". --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you give it more than a few days, mayhaps a citation will turn up? Please don't stop the article from developing naturally by removing (possibly only temporarily) uncited claims whilst it's being AfD'd, as it might bias the process (not accusing you of gaming the system, just saying that removing uncited sources without giving them a chance to be cited by another editor who comes across it happens to stunt the articles development, whilst the question of wether it could develop into a worthwhile article is under discussion here)

the [citation needed] makes clear that the urban dictionary citation doesn't include any mention as to the practices rarity, and i'm not sure that you're correct to say that a porn video of headfucking doesn't prove that headfucking exists. Note that i'm not claiming the video proves notability (in fact, i'll admit that it's a good argument for merging with some kind of list of esoteric sexual acts, but would prefer to see how the article develops first) --Arkelweis (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll be hands off. Add all the unreliable source(s) and porn video links you want. Best of luck with that "development." --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i think i'll re-insert the edits then be hands-off myself wrt those two things --Arkelweis (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not be established with even a single reliable source. Pure original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's not fictitious, disturbingly enough -- I found a video on pornhub, but can't add it to the article (pornhub links are blacklisted). link ends with "view_video.php?viewkey=7443b968a444224214bc" if anyone wishes to verfy (also, how would we/should we get the link deblacklisted just for that article?). Article should be allowed to develop naturally. --Arkelweis (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single video doesn't make it notbale. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a video + an illustration (on Commons) + a definition on Urban dictionary... it's starting to make it a bit more notable! --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- change to Keep or merge dependant on notability (half a million google results, many of which are probably 'mentally screwing with people', is the best I can do: any other notability claims? -- if not, merge with another list/article) --Arkelweis (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, unsourced. Well, it is sourced, but it's urban dictionary. Per nom really, and the above comment by Compfunk2, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with some other sex article like List of sex positions as suggested above. --CPAScott (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's only sourced to Urban dictionary! Why are we even discussing this? Fences&Windows 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. can i just cite monty pythons argument clinic? no it isnt. and the illustration does not mean anything. a PHOTO, yes, then we would have absolute notability, if it wasnt photoshopped. babies are born way way too early in their development compared to other animals, solely because of our big heads. its an evolutionary tradeoff, and we are lucky we barely make it into the world. this act is not possible for 99.9999999% of human beings. do the math. now, maybe an article on the desire to return to the womb...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, too many unrelated thoughts. waste of everyones time to elucidate. its not a real sex act, and the article is only a definition, self evident, so no reason for article. illustration is a cartoon, not intended to be used to document something.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe even merge into an article about sexual fantasies. Nevertheless, I'm for a delete.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of notability. Of the three editors above who are in favour of either "keep" or "merge":

CPAScott simply says "merge", but gives no reason at all.

TwøWiñgš gives two reasons: it "doesn't fall under the category of WP:NOT", and it "has been invented long ago". Neither of these addresses Wikipedia's inclusion criterion of notability. (Incidentally I think it does fall under WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDICTIONARY.)

Arkelweis is the only one of the three who has shown any attempt to find evidence of notability, but he has failed to do so. He finishes by saying "any other notability claims? -- if not, merge with another list/article" and again, like CPAScott he gives no reason for merging rather than deleting. The threshold of notability required for merging may be lower than that for keeping as an article, but it is still there; nobody has shown notability.

Some of the arguments above are about whether this is fictitious, and whether or not fictitious acts should be included. This is actually irrelevant: whether something is fictitious or not, the criterion for inclusion is substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Romeo and Juliet: fictitious but notable. My pet cat: not fictitious but not notable. Headfucking: not notable, whether fictitious or not.

I decided to repeat Arkelweis's Google search. For some reason Google gave me only 209,000 hits, not the half a million that Arkelweis says he got. I inspected 100 of those hits. I found "The headfucking task of returning home"; I found "start headfucking the nazis about israel being a prison camp for the assholes behind wwii"; I found "red head fucking a donkey", I found a page showing various gross sexual acts, but not literal "headfucking"; I found a blog the owner of which seems to have decided to call "headfucking" just for the fun of it; etc etc. I did not find any reference to the literal practice, except a link to this Wikipedia article. I am not saying that more references don't exist, but the fact that considerable effort has failed to turn any up strongly suggests that there is not enough coverage to establish notability in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, Arkelweis and I were actually debating "fictitious" claims on the article itself, summary to immediate deletion, which probably should have been limited to the talk page. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with both your argument for deletion, as well as the argument against merging. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, though I'm not sure that TwoWings wasn't arguing about fiction ina different sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just explain how I came to write this short article. First I vaguely remember a strange fictitious story I heard when I was about 14 (in the 90s) where it was question of a man choosing between being hanged or have to insert his head in the vagina of a huge woman (and eventually whose head was kind of aspirated within the woman's vagina - yeah it's weird!). Then a few years ago I had actually seen the video Arkelweis is talking about (but I thought it was special effects not real). And a few days ago, I discovered the picture which I included in the article, which made me think "is there something about headfucking on Wikipedia?" and since there wasn't I just decided to create the page. The illustration by Martin Van Maele (dated 1905) made me think it was a quite old sex act, fictitious or not, and therefore notable enough to deserve an article. You think the contrary? Fare. I just expose what I think about it and how I came to create it. I just really think that the illustration itself proves it's quite an old fantasy... --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 16:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For some reason Google gave me only 209,000 hits, not the half a million that Arkelweis says he got" -- yes, sorry, must have looked at the wrong tab. "head in pussy" gives half a million, whereas headfucking gives 209,000... "gives no reason for merging rather than deleting. The threshold of notability required for merging may be lower than that for keeping as an article, but it is still there; nobody has shown notability" -- a list of sexual practices should be finite and relatively small, so we could go for 'exhaustive list' rather than 'list wherein each entry is at least a bit notable'? --Arkelweis (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson's failure to find any reliable sources (or even unreliable sources) discussing the term. As he says, no valid reason for inclusion has been discussed. Is there some sort of purple barnstar we can give James for braving the results of that Google search, I wonder? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep on the basis of the 1905 illustration by a famous erotic illustrator Martin van Maële, which is a RS that it was considered a fictitious pornographic act. There is no evidence it is real, and the article should indicate that. Maele illustrated fiction, not news or medicine. FWIW, photos purporting to show it can apparently be found in utube with the right search terms [36] DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Whitton Scout Group

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

Contested PROD. PROD and PROD2 removed without comment by author. Unreferenced and unverifiable. Likely COI. Even a large scout group (and this one is not huge) is probably not automatically notable. The "world record" might make them notable but I can't verify it and I can't even determine what a "King Scout" (as opposed to a "King's Scout") is in a UK context. Google has little on them, certainly not enough to reference an article from reliable sources. In fact they get less hits that the 1st or 3rd Whitton Scout Groups, neither of which have articles. Nothing in Google News, so it looks like that "world record" didn't even make the local press. DanielRigal (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be removed because the subject of the article does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations.--Karljoos (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unless someone can convince me that this record for most King or Queen Scouts in a Scout group actually is in the Guinness Book of Records (and possible still delete even then). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to establish notability, so it fails WP:N. Were sources to be found I would argue it still fails, as Guinness World Records of itself does not constitute a signficant award or significant coverage by multiple independent secondary sources, and neither the "Kings and Queens" point or its successive census rankings are inherently notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete --we regaularly delete churches with a much larger membership. Sometimes, local clubs etc can usefully be merged into an article on a place, but I dount that is appropriate here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11, copyvio as noted by Pseudomonas. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys chinchen

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

Unsourced WP:BLP1E. Results of case went out on a syndicated news feed, but no other coverage of the subject was available, and as per WP:BLP1E, future coverage does not seem likely. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominated. Oy. Crafty (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - copyvio of [37]. Pseudomonas_(talk) 08:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnose (cigarettes)

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

A non-notable product, namely cigarettes, with no supporting reliable sources. All references linked to in the article are from Russian language trade magazines. Crafty (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, obvious self-promotion by Donskoj Tabak New seeker (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a borderline speedy as hoax, because not only could I find any Ghits about the product, but there isn't even a mention of the word "hypnose" in the article's sole English reference (and if it's a British product, why are all the other supposed references in Russian?). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I really don't think it's a hoax. Merely a non-notable brand of tacky cocktail durris made by the Brits and sold in Russia. Given that many western nations have strict anti-tobacco advertising legislation I think you're unlikely to find many Ghits. Check the links in the article itself. Crafty (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I did. Didn't you read what I said? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes. Yes I did. Your comments are as informative as usual. Crafty (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted, per request of original and only author, non-admin closure. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taffy Shih

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

The subject of the article wants her article deleted as she's not comfortable with her biographical info on Wikipedia. Also, there aren't many sources online relating to her. I made it because she was a girl I went to high school with and found out that she was notable so I made an article about her and thought she'd like it.

Speedy Delete - one editor who request the article be deleted. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC) 16:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Journal of Innovations in Medicine

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

The journal in question has never been published, and has zero Google news hits, book hits, or scholar hits. In fact, there are virtually no Google web hits in general after you take out the Wikipedia hits (and its mirrors) and the web site itself. Original editor removed the {{prod}} and {{prod-2}} tags, along with the other improvement tags. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I originally nom'd it for CSD as {{db-corp}}, but was told that didn't apply as the article wasn't about a company. I then nom'd it for CSD as a {{db-a7}} (covering individuals, animals, organizations, corporations, or web content); that was declined as 'not sure it counts as web content'. At the same time, DGG added a {{prod}} which the creating editor—the WP:SPA Drsms123—then removed.

And do I need to mention that it's completely unsourced? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG was correct in declining the speedy. A7 does not apply to journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other print. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Given how little the author wrote, I don't think it's clear as to whether it's a print journal or just a Web site. I believe that it's the latter based on how Web sites are all that's mentioned. And wouldn't a print journal also be covered by "corporation or organization"? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Furthermore, this fails WP:CRYSTAL because according to the article, the "[f]irst issue of this quarterly journal is proposed to be published in November 2009." No prejudice to recreation if/when the journal receives third-party coverage when WP:CRYSTAL not longer applies. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + the author(s) are not even sure about web-site of the journal, not to say the other journal details. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New journal with no evidence of passing Wikipedia:Notability (Academic Journals). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another journal jumping on the open access bandwagon. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as it currently fails all criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (Academic Journals). --Crusio (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect if the publisher is notable. A number of the editorial team are from "Academica" in India, but I am not seeing much notability there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the lack of reliable sources. Salih (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 17:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Renzi

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

Unsourced, seemingly not-notable BLP of a blog journalist in China. Verifiability will be difficult without expert help. Article is also up for deletion on the Chinese wikipedia.OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google search for "Lu Renzi" returns 8 results, none of which are reliable sources, while a Google News Archive search for "Lu Renzi" returns nothing. A Google search for "卢壬子" returns mostly blogs, while a Google News Archive search for "卢壬子" returns no results. This blogger appears to fail WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wao...Since the entry created by "Lhyx", I presume someone was trying to pull a fast one... It fails "WP:Too Many To List". TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither the person nor the blog have been discussed non-trivially in reliable sources. cab (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracie Andrews

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where she, rather than the one event she gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. She committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. While it is true that the victim's mother published a book about the event, I find no media coverage of the book, which currently has a sales ranking on Amazon of around 1.5 million; so it does not seem incredibly significant. Delete. Dominic·t 06:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This would fall afoul of WP:BLP1E were it not for the documentary. The documentary constitutes independent secondary sources and demonstrates that the "one event" had a notable (if minor) impact on pop culture. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading the importance of that documentary. She was covered in a small segment of TV documentary about an entirely different event, the murder of Shannon Matthews. The complete lack of any reference to Andrews in all of the summaries and reviews of the show suggests she only received a passing mention (cf. [38][39][40]). It hardly indicates that she is notable outside of this single event, nor that there are any adequately biographical sources on her. Dominic·t 06:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you referring to Blood on Her Hands, Tears, Lies and Videotapes, or both? They both sound like absolutely awful pieces of television but I'm not in a position to watch them myself and judge how they treat the subject matter; it sounds as though you haven't been able to either. In the absence of someone first-hand verifying that they're not relevant I'm still inclined to err on the side of keep. (Thanks for bringing your intelligence - and more information - to the debate, though.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was Tears, Lies and Videotapes that I was talking about, which doesn't seem too significant for this article. "Blood on Her Hands" (I forgot about that earlier) is indeed about Andrews, but upon inspection is not exactly a documentary, but an episode of the true crime TV series Real Crime. In any case, I do not believe that the airing of a show on TV is much different from the news sources. There is no body of work here to construct a biographical article out of. There is simply an event that made the news, and, while a tragedy, was of no lasting encyclopedic consequence for our purposes. Dominic·t 08:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, the documentary has no WIKI-page, hence not notable. It is possible to create the WIKI-page about the documentary and incorporate most of the information of this page into the new one. New seeker (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not having a Wikipedia page is not de facto evidence of non-notability, it's only evidence that no one has made a Wikipedia page yet. Kate (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I've alluded to elsewhere, I think there should be more discussion in WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E regarding what constitutes "significant coverage". As noted above, Andrews has been discussed in a documentary and a true crime television series. She has been mentioned in various books, the news coverage is persistent (e.g. [41], [42]), and she is still tabloid fodder ten years after the crimes. She is no John Hinckley, Jr., but I think she has received coverage that "ordinary murderers" don't receive. Location (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – she is certainly notable in the UK, and whilst there was 1 initial event there have been (and will continue to be) many subsequent events (initial search for killer where TA as the bereft girlfriend gave her version of events, trial, which was covered daily, sentencing, possible parole etc). As a relevant aside, the article for the victim Lee Harvey (who would indeed seem to be covered by the 1-event scenario) was merged to Tracie Andrews in a previous afd. Occuli (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case is infamous, it has received mountains of press coverage over a 12 year period.[43] We should focus the article entirely on the crime, her attempted cover-up, her conviction, and her appeal, as this is not a biography. See Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) for why this case meets notability criteria. I suggest renaming to Murder of Lee Harvey or Tracie Andrews "Road rage murder" case, or something along those lines. Fences&Windows 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for the article; the crime and the subsequent investigation and trial were prolonged and notable so good sources are there. However, remove the current name from the infobox and either explain or remove the reference to Jane Andrews (who doesn't have an article and is only mentioned briefly in two others). Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI do not read WP:BLP1E to mandate deletions of articles. It simply mandates that non-notable individuals not get biographies just because they play a role in a single notable event. Her notability does not rest in one event. Andrews may have originally become notable due to her involvement in one event but she is now notable for other events: her trial, her conviction, her sentence. She recently had an article in regards to surgery. [44]. Nolamgm (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Donington Park. MuZemike 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1000 km Donington

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

A race first held in 2006 and not held since. Similar to other 1000 km endurance races as seen in the template at the bottom of the article, but with only one running it's hardly notable enough. Suggested merging with Donington Park. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 05:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable--Karljoos (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2006 1000km of Donington. I mean, this article should mention that the race replaces the traditional 1000 km Silverstone for the 2006 Le Mans Series season. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2006 1000km of Donington - unnecessary article. Donnie Park (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 19:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty of Hasan Pasha

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

This article has previously been speedied. Some editors have expressed concern that its contents are unverified. Google is little help. Note that some related articles, such as Büyük Süleyman Pasha the Great, are written by the same user. Going to AfD for consensus. Melchoir (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found. Eeekster (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be a valid topic; see this Google Books result. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator and sole maintainer of this page has clearly indicated a lack of interest in providing sources, attacks other editors (see Zibi Fer's talk), and continually ignores all requests to clean up or otherwise make his pages meet basic quality criteria. When edits to the article are reverted, he starts using the talk page as an impromptu second article. The supporting articles (on notable members of the dynasty) might eventually be useful if fixed by a competent editor, but without references supporting the importance of the whole dynasty, I can't even argue for this article on notability grounds. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This source, as well as the one found by Cunard, discusses the dynasty as a whole. There's some more coverage here. Content and behavioural issues should not be addressed by deletion of articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant, behavioral issues are not sufficient reason. I'm still not convinced that this is all that notable though. From what I can tell from the limited Google preview, the dynasty was a relatively minor set of rulers for a limited region appointed by the Ottoman Empire. They didn't rule the empire, they had limited autonomy, etc. We rarely have articles on the family of a governor of a particular state or province from the 1800s, unless the family as a whole was notable. If a particular member of the dynasty was notable, they should be included, but a page primarily devoted to the lineage is only justifiable if most of the line was notable; I see little evidence for that. -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If they were rulers of this area then they were notable. The fact that we do not yet have articles on other regional governors is not a reason to delete this.filceolaire (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 07:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary G. Enig

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

Non-notable fringe figure in nutrition field; mostly primary sources. Orange Mike | Talk 03:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - assuming the article is factual, she's published, peer reviewed, and decorated. The fact she's fringe doesn't make her non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no substantial, reliable, independent sources. Almost everything availible about her was either a) written by her or b) in blogs or other unreliable sources. She has a job, and has published articles in a few journals, and published a few books. Having a job where you write things that get published sometimes has never been a baseline for inclusion in Wikipedia. This person seems to fail both the general notability test for lacking any substantial, independent, reliable writing about her life, and fails the WP:PROF test as well, for showing no evidence of passing that guideline either. --Jayron32 05:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources that would support her inclusion either. WP:GNG and WP:PROF both seem to demand her exclusion. Crafty (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this is a non-notable, fringe figure without coverage by reliable sources. The article ends up being primarily a comprehensive repository for her articles with little mention of how out of the mainstream they are. OccamzRazor (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the "Eat Fat, Lose Fat" book was published in 2005 and is based on specifically substituting coconut fat for other fats in the diet. The book's cover claims that Enig is an "International Expert on the Biochemistry of Food and Fat." Having a dedicated WP article may seem to support that claim, however the article is cited by primary sources, rather than qualifying WP reliable sources. OccamzRazor (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Any mention of her is normally going to be highly associated with the Weston_A._Price_Foundation- so one solution would be to merge some of the article info to a small section there (as Sally Fallon, the other co-founder has). Given the below Post article and this Times article, the media appears to be using her as expert source for trans fat.

The issue of deletion came up because OccamzRazor was willfully violating NPOV and NOR for the article and I asked for a third opinion. The first third opinion suggested that it would be easier to delete the article than deal with these violations. And now It is much easier to simply voice an opinion on the current article then do the research that needs to be done as to what the article could be. Kudos to John Z for doing some. Gregwebs (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article does read as a personal promo. Especially worrying are numerous expressions of the subject's opinion on various dietary issues, which IMO is not appropriate on WP. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Weston A. Price Foundation. I don't really see her fulfilling WP:AUTHOR, but as Gregwebs said, most of her work is associated with that foundation. A small section on that page about her background would probably do just fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF. ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With 200+ gnews hits for "Mary Enig" and more for "Mary G Enig", it looks like there is enough reliable material on her and her theories, which appear to be becoming more popular. For instance this Washington Post article credits her with being a pioneer opposing trans fats since 1976. H-index according to gscholar looks like 8, not decisive, but doesn't seem fringy. The talk page has a comment about the big business or "industry powers stopped her group .." text being unsupported by the cite and not claimed by her. BLP and overly critical editing may be real concerns here. The 236 Gbooks hits show plenty of independent sources calling her e.g. "a well-respected researcher in the field of fats and oils" "fellow of the American College of Nutrition and president of the Maryland Nutritionists Association", an "eminent scientist" and even "arguably one of the most distinguished lipid biochemists in the country". Don't have the time to look more in depth now, but sourcing a much better article seems to be no problem.John Z (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I do not think she passes WP:PROF criterion #1, I do think she meets the more general WP:BIO based on the analysis by John Z. Also, an argument can be made that she meets WP:PROF criterion #7 (substantial impact outside academia in academic capacity). Her position regarding saturated fats versus trans-fats is increasingly becoming more accepted, as are other of her long-standing claims (the cholesterol myth). Regardless, there is enough coverage to justify keeping the article.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question to those voting to keep: Due to the fact that this person has received scant mention by reliable sources, how do you propose to overcome the fact that this article presents only her non-mainstream views and nutritional advice without citing any reliable sources? If you are voting to keep the article, could you please improve it with citations from reliable sources rather than just vote to keep the article as is? It seems to me that her numerous WAPF articles and overall influenence in the field of nutrition have not been deemed significant enough for reliable sources to even bother to comment on them. Why should Wikipedia give her and her views an uncontested article? In my opinion, this article should be deleted if it were to stay as is. However I would support her biographical information being incorporated into the Weston A. Price Foundation article in the same mannor as the co-founder, Sally Fallon. OccamzRazor (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think she has received more than scant mention by reliable sources, more than enough to support the article, as pointed out above. WP:PROF #7, as Eric Yurken points out above, is probably the clearest support for retention.John Z (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabid zombies

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

Non-notable future film; creation was probably promotional; prod was removed by article creator without a rational. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 03:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, IMDB doesn't know about it, and Google is similarly mute. I can't find anything relevant on any of the actors either, leading me to suspect this is WP:MADEUP (or, at least, it's not destined for commercial release). Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet notable. At such time as it becomes notable, the creator is welcome to re-create the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Hoax. The film and C.N.C. Entertainment Independent Multimedia Group doesn't exist. Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return if and/or when film notability can be established. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It boils down to "the sources establish notability" vs. "the sources do establish notability", and neither argument came out on top. MuZemike 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Eugene Davis

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

Moved here to AfD after article was restored in an RfD discussion. Citing only works by the subject of the article, the article does not show enough to indicate that Mr. Davis meets - or clears - the WP:BIO notability bar. Links to this article from others have the appearance of a walled garden. B.Wind (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, no WP:RS. Verbal chat 20:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's apparently very, very popular in India. One quick search showed all of those references that I have added. I believe he is notable enough. Silver seren^C 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ELs to superficial puff-pieces in the Indian press do not amount to "significant coverage" (also it's odd that a US born/based person gets coverage primarily from a different continent). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is an entirely notable source. And those articles are entirely about him. What policy is this article failing? Silver seren^C 02:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Puff pieces" = superficial and insubstantial = not "significant coverage" (required per WP:GNG), regardless of the reliability of the source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is a spiritual teacher and author of two books; he grew up, read books, was trained and ordained by a yogi, was appointed a minister and later head of a Self-Realization Fellowship Center, spent time in the army, and travelled. This does not satisfy WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basic criteria of WP:BIO are satisfied by the numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTHOR requires evidence of impact, WP:GNG requires in-depth coverage in independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for inclusion is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

The Indian newspaper fulfills all of these requirements and several of them is directly about him. So, he is not failing WP:GNG. And I do not believe WP:AUTHOR is correct to use here. Besides that, he is the head of an organization, further verifying notability. Silver seren^C 12:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's some substantial (although not extensive) coverage and here's a book review in what seems to be a reliable source for its field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment relisted for further discussion of the new sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: assuming that these "new sources" are Phil Bridger's, not the ELs in the article (which have already been extensively commented upon & dismissed), I'd make the following comment. Neither source appears to give any depth of coverage to Davis. The French source is a single paragraph that appears to spend more time on a Swiss conference he attended than anything else. The Yoga Journal article spends almost half its length discussing the Yoga sutras before even mentioning Davis' book, and barely touches upon Davis himself. Besides, the presence on the page of an advertisement for Davis' Center for Spirtual Awareness that is as large as the review itself gives a strong impression of a 'pay for play' (you advertise, we review) arrangement. My above 'delete' opinion therefore stands. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the entirety of this insubstantial coverage could be summarised as 'Davis was born, studied under Paramahansa Yogananda, formed his own yoga center and occasionally travels to India.' Nothing to distinguish him from any other yoga teacher (let alone "widely cited by their peers or successors", "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" or "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" per WP:BIO). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment as nom. The sources mentioned by Phil Bridger add slight weight regarding WP:BIO as the former (French) article mentions his name nominally and does not discuss him at all; the book review is focused solely on the book, not its author. I still see no reliable source that actually discusses him; thus I reiterate my recommendation for deletion.B.Wind (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:BIO. See this article and this article from The Times of India. There is also this Google Books result, which provides information about his year of birth, as well as some biographical details. Cunard (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly-notable. Words are quoted in Yoga Gems: A Treasury of Practical and Spiritual Wisdom from Ancient and Modern Masters a book of spiritual quotes compiled by no other than Georg Feuerstein, a highly-regarded academic authority in Indologic studies (p.108). Appears in the "New Thought Luminaries" section of Susan G. Shumsky's Miracle Prayer: Nine Steps to Creating Prayers That Get Results (p. 295). Organizational profile and bio seems to be notable enough to be covered at James R. Lewis' The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions (p. 195). Words are quoted and duly-attributed on p. 30 of The Genius of Great Achievers: How You Can Accomplish the Impossible by Dr. Darryl Wheat, Terresa Ray, and Dottie Albertine. Name mentioned and work recommended on p. 54 of Choose to Be Healthy by Susan Smith Jones and Wayne Dyer. Deemed notable by Swami Krishnananda to include their entire conversation in p. 154 of his (Krishnananda's) book Your Questions Answered. And so many mentions in different self-help and spiritually books that it just seems second nature to them that the guy is a respected authority worth mentioning, discussing and even quoting verbatim. - Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: of the sources that Shannon Rose lists, only The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions has the potential to meet "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That source gives three, fairly short, paragraphs to the CSA, the first and largest being for its founding before Davis came on board. Only the second paragraph focuses on Davis. Whilst this source adds slightly to notability, it does not come close to constituting "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Hrafn, all those that were mentioned are "reliable sources independent of the subject." None of those authors are connected to Roy Eugene Davis in any way, and they are not your average unknown self-published authors but respected authorities in their fields like Georg Feuerstein, James R. Lewis, and Wayne Dyer. Let us not over-interpret "significant coverage" here. Yoga Gems: A Treasury of Practical and Spiritual Wisdom from Ancient and Modern Masters, for example, is a book of quotes from people deemed as "masters" by Dr. Feuerstein. The inclusion of a quote from Davis in a book of quotes is significant coverage relative to the nature of the book. Not to mention that it isn't just a book of quotes from random folks, but a book of quotes from masters. We cannot measure "significant coverage" based on the number of paragraphs devoted to Davis in a given publication. If there exist all these books coming from different places and written by different people who are themselves notable, each alluding to Davis as an authority, their collective presence would outweigh 2 or 3 full newspaper articles. On p. 124 of Paramhansa Swami Yogananda: Life Portrait and Reminiscences Sri Sailendra Bejoy Dasgupta wrote: "Roy Eugene Davis is one of the most noteworthy of Yoganandaji's disciples... He has a great number of aspiring followers and devotees in many parts of America and Europe, where there are branches of his institution as well... Well-known for his erudite speech and writing, Roy Davis' many books are read in all circles." And here we realize that the author was right because, as previously-mentioned, it just seems second nature for everyone in the Eastern Philosophy, Yoga, New Thought, and Welness fields to quote and praise his works. In Centering: A Guide to Inner Growth by Sanders G. Laurie and Melvin J. Tucker p. 188, the authors quoted another author who mentioned Davis in his (the other author's) book Dream Your Way to Happiness and Awareness, then proceeded to describe Davis on their own as "an expert on yoga, meditation, and creative imagination" We have loads of third-party published sources with this kind of information about the subject, labeling someone with as wide and diverse a coverage as this as "un-notable" looks like a direct assault to commonsense. - Shannon Rose ^Talk 21:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Shannon-the-Shouter. Quotes are by their nature not "significant coverage", and are seldom on the topic of their utterer. Nor is being simply named/recommended "significant coverage". Miracle Prayer contains a bare "trivial" mention. I had assumed, from the context, that Krishnananda was associated with Davis. Closer investigation reveals no direct association however. But it is unclear whether a (presumably short) conversation (which would be a WP:PRIMARY source) would contain "significant coverage" on the topic of Davis. A single paragraph in the epilogue of Paramhansa Swami Yogananda: Life Portrait and Reminiscences is more substantive than the rest of this -- but hardly sufficient basis for a biography. A few words of praise & a few quotes does not make for "significant coverage", and does not provide sufficient basis for an encyclopaedic biographical article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of your first sentence, please keep this discussion civil, Hrafn. And this really goes for both of you. Please refrain from derogatory comments and just focusing on presenting your arguments. The purpose of this discussion is to civilly show, due to policy one way or the other, whether this article should or should not be deleted. Please focus on that and not each other.Silver seren^C 15:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren: a shouted signature is disruptive (you should see the mess its repeated use makes of the article's talkpage) and is deserving of a comment. You might note that the vast majority of my comment was 'focused' on content. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous sources which establish notability. Note the need to search on the various permutations of his name such as Roy E. Davis, R.E. Davis, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the stories in the Indian newspapers, listed incorrectly as external links, are good references. They're full stories. I cannot tell to what extent they are based on PR, but they are the new newspapers from there that we usually rely on. There is therefore no reason to be concerned about whether or not the quotes alone would be significant. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testwell CMT++

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

WP:Notability not apparent. No substantive Google hits. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: non-notable, non-consumer software - static code analysis tools which measure the code complexity for software written in C, C++ and Java - referenced only to internal sites. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 17:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testwell CMTJava

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

WP:Notability not apparent. No substantive Google hits. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 07:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GX Racers

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

Previously speedied. A gnews search doesn't find any reliable sources to indicate notability of a product and/or company. tedder (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page is posted as a stub article under the manufacturer's (Jakks Pacific) main page for their newly released line of toys. The original reason for posting this page was to provide an easy reference for collectors of the cars to find a complete list of all available models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randybenn (talk • contribs)

So you're arguing WP:OSE, WP:LOSE, WP:ALLORNOTHING. Nice. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced Come back when you are sourced to something besides youtube. Also, don't format articles with <br>. Miami33139 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party reliable sources to attest to its notability. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any reliable sources about GX Racers on Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 19:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low rock

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

Non-notable neologism invented by notable musician. This entire article constitutes original research and is destined to do so forever. There appears—after good faith searches—to be no consistent, generally agreed-upon (or even argued about) use of this combination of two exceptionally common words. ^Bongo_matic 02:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely non-notable neologism, no true sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bongo-Hammer, a winning combination here. The term appears to be a non-notable neologism; the sources provide only one example of the term, and that is usage by the musician who apparently coined the phrase--a phrase never really minted. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete genre refers to the work of a single notable band whose music could just as simply be considered alternative rock. Article does not provide reliable sources for any evidence that this genre was used to describe any group but Morphine. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redesdale Studios

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

Non-notable recording studio. Just because one or two people of marginal notability worked there doesn't make it inherently notable. Zero reliable sources to establish notability have been provided. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It seems much more than one or two people, and of less than marginal notability. The article would benefit however of some stronger indication of the studio notability itself. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability for the studio would be established with reliable sources covering. Perhaps some music industry magazine might have featured it. But if that has happened, then I couldn't find it. All I can find are credit listings on recordings. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Assuming the information in the article is factual, it provides coverage of a topic likely to be discussed on a wide number of music-related pages and in that sense helps provide context for genuine research. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 11:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha (Sasha Sokol album)

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

NN album. →ROUX ₪ 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Artist was a member of a notable act Timbiriche, as evidenced by this and released several solo albums as evidenced by this. It is her debut album. However, unable to find any info in English from Google or Google News on this album other than a track list, but there appears to plenty in Spanish. No chart info in Mexico, the US, or UK. Right now the article is nothing more than a track listing, it and its singles are already listed in the discography on the artist's page. So unless anyone can translate some of the Spanish articles and put something together it should be deleted. J04n(talk page) 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous comment acknowledges substantial Spanish-language coverage. Inability of editors to read Spanish-language text is not grounds for deletion of an article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing Spanish, or indeed how to even find Spanish sources, I had no idea these existed. Do they establish notability per WP:MUSIC? → ROUX ₪ 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~I think it is worth noting that the Spanish Wikipedia page for this album is nothing more than a tracklist, reinforcing that the information on the artist's page is sufficient.~~ My mistake, this is the Spanish Wikipedia page for this album, it has no third part references, only the artist's website. J04n(talk page) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the AfD for another week to give time for possible Spanish sources to be found. NW (Talk) 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am fluent in Spanish and couldn't find any non-trivial coverage in Spanish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per TPH (That seems to be the best !vote that we can get). Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo (vibration training)

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

An extensive article about a non-notable piece of exercise equipment. The impressive list of references has to do with the medical practice--not with the equipment the subject of the article. Many of the refs are taken from Whole body vibration, some refs published well before the device was even introduced. The history of this article can be found in Galileo (Vibration Training), prior to the cut-and-paste move. Delete. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this machine was the first of its kind (the first whole body vibration training device) and all the articles listed (apart from the ones before 1998) are in fact done with this specific device (please have a closer look not only to the abstracts and see which devices/products have actually been used in the listed publications). This shows the interest of research in this field of training technology as well as in this specific device. Other vibration training devices (working on a different motion pattern) are listed already in Wikipedia (see e.g. Power-Plate).

According to WP:CORP: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.

As discussed above this specific device has been topic of somewhat of 80 studies listed in PubMed alone since 1998. It appears to me that this is a significant coverage of secondary sources and as peer reviewed publications they can be considered as reliable and independent. Hence the articles appears to me wo be within the guidelines of Wikipedia.

The term non-notable in this context seems not appropriate especially since much less well documented systems are listed in Wikipedia Power-Plate. However if this article should be removed the other article needs be removed as well (Power-Plate).

Do not Delete User:Leo013 ☎ 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spot-checked a couple references and they did indeed use the Galileo. Not going to wade through them all but I think it's safe to assume good faith here. Leo013, can you provide evidence that it is the first device of its kind? The statement to that effect in the article should be cited. It would definitely help establish notability.Gruntler (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: If you read websites of many WBV training devices and also quite a few publications imply that in deed WBV was supposed to be invented by Russians. However as listed in the history section of the Galileo article this is not true at all. There are no publications at all indicating that a device like today's WBV training devices existed before 1996. What existed before 1996 was external stimulation of isolated parts of the body, but not a systematically stimulating device where the user stands on the machine and the today’s used frequency range and amplitude range let alone the side alternation of the Galileo device was used. There is a big difference in the effects between external stimulation and systematic stimulation – the systematic stimulation stimulates the complete muscle chain in a close to physiologic motion pattern – especially the side alternation mimicking the human gait (certainly without the swinging phase – but nevertheless close to human gait). This has been the basis for the current Whole Body Vibration Training devices with a growing number of manufacturers and lately a wave of cheap products made in China. The external stimulation on the other hand is known in literature as Biomechanical Stimulation (BMS) and there are plenty of publications in this field as well - but as I tried to explain - it is quite different approach and is not as widely used and known as WBV. I’ve been through a few hundred publications so far but couldn’t find any proof at all for this 'Russian tale'. Also I couldn't find any publication before 1998 about a machine using this 'systematic' approach comparable with WBV devices. In my personal opinion this is purely marketing talk, since a device sells better if it was invented for Cosmonauts/Astronauts. In my opinion a prove is in fact needed for the claims like in the article about vibration training that WBV was supposed to be a Russian invention - there is no proof for this as far as I know, even though many repeated that nice tale it does not make it a solid fact. In addition the correct names as used in literature are not to be confused (like unfortunately done in many articles, also in Wikipedia) after all literature obviously to separate the different approaches by using those names: Nazarov e.g. did not experiment with WBV but with what he called Biomechanical Stimulation (there is even a Nazarov Institute which focuses on BMS [45]) and the origin for that was probably Biermanns 'cycloid vibration massage'. User:Leo013 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It needs some cleanup to make it less of an advertisement but that aside I think the notability is established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Town Needs Guns

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

Non-notable band; only sources are primary; appears to fail WP:V on all claims that might pass WP:MUSIC Orange Mike | Talk 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not a notable band yet. It might become one in the future, at which point the creator is welcome to re-create the article. NOTE: Might also want to delete the associated album redirects at the bottom of the article - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik's contributions below. As far as I can tell it now does indeed meet WP:BAND criterion #1 and thus merits inclusion under existing policy, although I have to say that that seems like a ridiculously over-inclusive criterion that might need review. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a re-phrasing of the general notability guideline, at WP:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article goes, the redirects will too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several sources. Granted, it's not the strongest referencing, but there are lengthy interviews in AbsolutePunk and in Drowned in Sound, and brief but non-trivial mentions in The Sydney Morning Herald and in The Sun. Album reviews in AbsolutePunk and in Drowned in Sound also help. I'd say there is enough to meet WP:BAND criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik, nice save. Sources aren't great, but they're enough to meet WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David horta

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

Fails WP:NN, and has no sources. mitchsurp (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC) mitchsurp (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as non-notable. Crafty (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable --Karljoos (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8DeleteHe doesn't even have an article on the spanish WP - "es.Wikipedia aún no tiene una página llamada «David Horta»". filceolaire (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 07:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Roche

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

Notability not established. References are for minor, local awards and the feature in Teen Vogue appears to be a blog with a monthly "spotlight interview"—not significant coverage. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability entirely unclear Vartanza (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There's certainly secondary sources for her notability; it's only a question of whether those sources are themselves notable or reliable. It's a tough call when phrases like "big on YouTube" may support either genuine notability or complete obscurity. Unless anyone's able to give good reasons why we don't like the citations, keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As said in the nom, the feature in Teen Vogue appears to be a blog with an interview. It seems to be a "face in the crowd" interview, and there's nothing there on why the subject is notable. It is not significant coverage.

As far the other sources, let's see. One is a profile of a school that lists the subject as being in Teen Vogue and a winner of an non-notable award (nothing on google about it). There's a "reference" for Blurb, which appears to be a site where users can self-publish their artwork in a book. There's there a reference of a high school newspaper site announcing their local award that they won. Finally, there's a quick mention of the subject's leather jacket as a "myspace muse" in a seemingly non-notable fashion website.

The references are not wp:reliable sources, they don't claim or establish notability for the subject. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources, no major awards received. Lara 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lara 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Agam

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

The article contains only a link to his firm and to a blog; there are no independent, reliable sources discussing Agam. Fails WP:BIO. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the Ghits I found only mention his name in passing. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments to keep presented in two weeks. Uncontested requested deletion. Lara 19:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GladRags

AfDs for this article:

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

This "article" has been tagged for nearly a year as non-notable and lacking references for the same period with no improvement. Also reads as an advertisement. Previously proposed for deletion a year ago with ambivalent results but the near-complete lack of attention to improving the article demonstrates its lack of notability. It's just a tiny company's brochure masquerading as an article of note. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should have noted in the original rationale that this article doesn't come close to passing WP:CORP. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 15:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'd tend to say the feminine menstrual cup market isn't covered well, the reality is that I couldn't find reliable sources to confirm notability of GladRags. In fact, I could only find one article about the company that possibly wasn't a press release. (in case anyone can access it, see "Courtney, Emily", "Delicious Living; Oct2007, Vol. 23 Issue 10, p16-16, 1/3p, 1 color", abstract: "A list of feminine-hygiene products which can be utilized by women during menstrual period is presented. They include the divacup with a silicone cup, gladrags reusable menstrual pads, organic cotton tampons from Natracare company, and chlorine- and fragrance-free sanitary pads from Seventh Generation Inc.", ISSN 15365980). tedder (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - Hard to believe this hasn't been covered somewhere, such as the feminist press; but seems to be the case. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 07:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Baars

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. simply appearing in various minor roles does not make one notable. little third party coverage [46], and most of this coverage is passing mentions rather than in depth. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject's portrayal as Lavinia was a main antagonist role in Princess Sarah. Starczamora (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER requirement for multiple notable roles. Lara 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ENT - Alison ^❤ 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments to keep presented in two weeks. Uncontested requested deletion. Lara 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Martha Braun

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

Fails WP:ENT, WP:BLP1E. Only claim to notability is winning a pageant w/o it's own article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. what's a Binibining Aklan? Vartanza (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ConceptDraw PROJECT

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

This was speedy deleted and reconsidered at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 17. A number of issues have been raised, including whether the product meets the notability standards and whether the article is neutral. A rewrite is definitely necessary and should take place while this is at AfD, but deletion should be considered as well. Also, participants should keep in mind that conflict of interest questions have been raised regarding the article's author. Chick Bowen 00:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The searches above provide [47], [48], [49] (mostly behind pay wall) indicate borderline notability, but that second one looks like more than a puff piece. I'd prefer to see a second good bit of coverage in a RS as the others look like they might be rehashed PR releases. The one behind a pay wall might be quite good but I can't see enough to tell. Hobit (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another blast from the "project management" spam farm, non-consumer software useful only for supervising or managing computer programming work - a project management software tool from Computer Systems Odessa. Presents projects as a Gantt Chart with linked tasks, milestones and deadlines. There is no way this will ever become notable outside the field of IT management or become a household name. References found all relate to the IT business and as such have "limited interest and circulation". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that IT specialists and project managers won't be interested in this software or they don't read Wiki? CSOWind (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot say whether they will be interested in it or not; only that the references supplied do not establish that it's notable outside that field and merits inclusion in a general-interest encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Could you tell me what policy or guideline indicates that we shouldn't have information that would normally be found only in specialized encyclopedias? WP:N doesn't distinguish specialized sources from general sources. 141.212.111.88 (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First you seem to be a site-representative. Ie. ("we") So I'd start with WP:COI. Aditionaly, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your software products.--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, I forget to log in and I'm some person with a COI. Does Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Ring any bells? We (meaning us here at Wikipedia) are to include information that would be found in specialized encyclopedias. If you believe this would be found in a specialized encyclopedia you are making a keep argument. As shown above, there are reliable sources that cover this in depth, so it would seem to meet WP:N. I'm curious what part of WP:NOT you think is in violation and the other aren't reasons for deleting a notable topic... Hobit (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "we" neans wikipedia "we", sorry bout that.--Hu12 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to ConceptDraw. Was deleted previously 3 times under the article ConceptDraw Project; twice under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 and once as a prod.

* Quite a long history of article Spamming and promotion by "ConceptDraw" on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#ConceptDraw_Spam.

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEL and WP:COI I don't believe that self-promotion is a reason to delete an article that meets WP:N. The article, when it was deleted, was neutral in tone and actually fairly well done for a stub. Hobit (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I see, if the same article (last variant) was submitted by somebody else (not from CS Odessa), it wasn't discussed at all. My mistake - I should create an account with neutral info, so it wouldn't be a "self-promotion".CSOWind (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah McSweeney

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

Fails WP:ENT. Non-notable model. Trivial credits, refs are all pics and blog posts. No RS coverage. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, too. It seems more or less vanity. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 02:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - NN-BIO - Alison ^❤ 03:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbatical goat

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

This article about a Dutch band gives a long history of their "substance abuse", quarrels, breakups and changes of direction; but they have never managed to release an album, only two demos, and they have not achieved enough meet the notability standard of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, demos only released. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC bigtime. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Crafty (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and is a classic case of WP:GARAGE.sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Likely hoax NW (Talk) 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Season

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. Prod removed by author. ttonyb (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources for this. Most likely a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax per Joe Chill and also because "Murder Season" and the supposed director, "Faris Mhu", results in no non-Wikipedia Ghits; in fact, Faris Mhu doesn't even result in any non-Wikipedia hits. Also, there appears to be some sockpuppetry going on. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments to keep presented in two weeks. Uncontested requested deletion. Lara 18:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper and Oliver Guynes

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

fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews for either name. being related to Demi Moore is not relevant to notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The Young and the Restless is such a pop culture touchstone in certain demographics that I'd think there'd be notability to be found in most of its actors; however, extending that out past the stars and into the recurring characters is a little less palatable. In the absence of the article establishing these actors having made some actual impact on some portion of the world by way of this (or any other) role, delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Symptoms

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

Rock band whose record of gigs is maybe enough to save them from speedy deletion by WP:CSD#A7, but who have released only two self-published EPs and do not meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lara 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Davies (rugby)

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

Fails WP:NN mitchsurp (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC) mitchsurp (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be quite a bit about him on Google News, if it's the same Ben Davies... see here. --Tris2000 (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article IS kept, some consideration should be given to differentiating it from Ben Davies (rugby player). B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Ben Davies Wigan" on GNews gives a thinner return of hits (the search quoted above seems to mostly get hits from a different Ben Davies). He appears to be a reservist in a professional team. Does this qualify under WP:ATHLETE, or would it fit better in another article? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not notable, reserve player in a good team in obscure sport. Please, note that Wigan plays in Rugby League, which is different from Rugby Union. While RU is major international sport, RL is definitely minor. New seeker (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has only played at non-competitive level for his team so fails WP:ATHLETE; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- his club is a professional Rugby League club, so that I would have thought he was notable, but I know little of the sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neeti Solutions

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

Company in question doesn't have any page in its references other than its own - which isn't a reason to delete it unto itself, so I went to Google, and didn't find much insofar as this company is concerned. Found some press releases, but other than the Wiki articles, not much more. Seems almost spammish. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note

The article is definitely not spammish - but it does need help from better prepared editors (than me). I am a client of Neeti Solutions and would like to offer a word of support, since this is a social enterprise dedicated to helping people and especially youth worldwide to deal with challenges (e.g. environment, safety, health). I will try to help edit the article to be less "self serving" and more informational. Neeti has references from the UN, Ashoka Fellowship, and clients worldwide re its activities. David Gibson, The Global Challenge Award

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete non-notable start-up fails WP:CORP by a mile. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, obvious advertising: an information technology company, dedicated to develop software solutions that are socially relevant for a better and dignified human life. Dude! If you want a dignified human life, stay away from the Internet! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 votes in seven days following relist, no keep votes before that, thus an uncontested deletion for two weeks. Lara 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Monroe

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

Fails WP:ENT. Non-notable model and actress. Minor parts mostly in films w/o Wiki articles. Modeling credits are vague, as they always are w/ non-notable models. Pageant win doesn't appear to be of much significance, as it's for a suntan lotion company, and winning it doesn't appear to lead to anything more than an editorial in Playboy. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylheti mafia

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

Possible hoax, likely non-notable. I find zero Google hits for Sylheti mafia. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax/unsourced fiddle-faddle. Hairhorn (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments to keep made in two weeks, two arguments to delete including the nom. Uncontested proposed deletion. Lara 18:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iner Souster

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

No significant coverage in third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG. Looks fairly clear that the subject wrote this article about himself. He is one of thousands of people gluing junk together in their basements. Until these instruments are used extensively by very notable artists, or some major coverage of this person or the instruments is done, this is not remotely notable enough for an article. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong! After a little digging, turns out that the page was created by User:Houtlijm, who seems to be a puppet of User:YuriLandman, a notorious WP:COI liability. User:Iner is the article's subject, and he did indeed add some content to this page, but did not create it. Still fails general notability. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus seems to be that this fails [[WP:BAND] and WP:N NW (Talk) 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kooma (demogroup)

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

Could not find any sources to back up the content in this article or prove notability; as written fails WP:BAND and the general notability guideline. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. Is winning 2nd place at Assembly (demo party) an indicator of notability? JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to WP:BAND Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a band, this is a demoscene group. Do we have a better test for notability for these? If we were to use the band analogy, I would think that placing second at Assembly would be the equivalent of being a headliner at Lollapalooza or something along those lines, in which case it actually would meet WP:BAND. Again, I'm still undecided but trying to think out loud. JBsupreme (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N because the article has no references to reliable sources with substantial coverage of this group. Sandstein 11:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 11:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Velardo

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

fails WP:BIO. almost all the gnews hits are for a namesake who is a photographer [50]. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Peacer, although that article's notability is also kinda iffy. -- œ ^™ 04:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not satisfy notability requirements, and the company article doesn't look notable to me either. Lara 18:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTE - Alison ^❤ 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hits and More

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

Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (Giungla Records). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability not established. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Network HR (magazine)

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

Clearly just an ad for the magazine. The creator is User:Morryone, and the second sentence of the article reads, "As of mid-2009, Morry Morgan is the managing editor." -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Tag - It's not clearly an ad, though there is a WP:COI problem. Keep the article but tag with {{coi}} and {{npov}}. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per below. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you actually start reading the articles on the website, you can see this "magazine" is little more than a PR mailing for the parent company -- a company newsletter with a fancy cover and containing "articles" featuring the company. As such, this is definitely non-notable. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morryone (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I created the page as a legacy for a magazine that is a first for China (ie. bi-lingual HR), and didn't intend on it being an advertisement. I mirrored TIME magazine formatting.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it Promo. Miami33139 (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Morryone appears to have a conflict of interest, having identified himself as the creator of the cover artwork (on the image description pages), and because he is likely Morry Morgan (managing editor and founder). As such, his contributions on this topic ought to be particularly well sourced, to avoid the impression that he is promoting the magazine. At this point, since he's essentially the only contributor and there are no reliable sources establishing notability, I'd say delete it. TheFeds 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on the trivial notability of the subject, also taking into consideration the article has only been edited by one user (as of 28/09/09) I'll change and vote in favour for deletion also. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morryone (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Contributors for the magazine come from human resources experts based in China. Only a few are afiliated with the magazine's parent company.[reply]

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