Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 9

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 8 February 10 February >

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 Speedy keep AFD was malformatted; article clearly needs improvement, not deletion. We don't delete stuff just to have someone else "rewrite it properly." Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadwater Farm riot

edit

Suggest deletion - in 2.5 years this article has not been given citations and it is a contradictory duplicate of the much better page Broadwater Farm. In this page there is a subsection which deals with this topic and there are several facts which are different yet sourced and backed up. Suggest Broadwater Farm riot is deleted and perhaps could be re-instated when someone has time to re-write it properly?

Keep - artilce details a significant, notable event. relevant material should be transfered to it from the Broadwater Farm article. 129.11.76.229 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given significant developments in the ongoing investigation into the murder of PC Blakelock during February 2010 this page is likely to receive a greater level of interest and should be kept and updated to reflect that. Agree that significant editing is required to achieve consistency and exhaustive detail of known facts, however transfer of details from the Broadwater Farm article would be a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.53.100 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn, not needed anymore Jac16888Talk 22:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Höfðaletur

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

Neutral nomination.

Höfðaletur is an article which is currently in Icelandic, and listed at WP:PNT#Höfðaletur . Its subject is an Icelandic font, there is a admittedly poor machine translation on the talk page. There are a number of google and google book hits, pretty much all in Icelandic, so they're not much use for writing an English article unless we find someone who knows Icelandic. Not aware of any guidelines regarding fonts, so what do people think? For the record there are no icelandic speakers at PNT as far as I'm aware, so there is a strong possibility that if this isn't deleted now it will sit for two weeks before being listed for Prod. Thanks Jac16888Talk 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep provided, of course, that it can be translated and provided with more sources. From trying to (Google) translate some of the above-mentioned hits it looks like this font has considerable historical significance. I came across this site which shows some examples of the font and also illustrates how the Icelanders keep their heritage alive. Favonian (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have translated it, and then rewritten it with references taken from the article that was listed under Links. Added the site referred to above by Favonian as a second external link; it illustrates use of a modern font based on Höfðaletur by the second modern designer referred to in the article, and that design job won an award. Also found a very bad online version of the article in a German translation, which should help German-speakers to verify its contents. There is one additional source in English that I cannot access: an English-language PhD dissertation Gunnlaugur S.E. Briem, Royal College of Art, 1980). I've put both of those in Sources. Most of the Google hits are either blog entries or museum catalog references, so nothing usable for the article, but they do demonstrate notability and I believe the article plus the dissertation are decisive in that respect. I just wish I could reference the latter in the article. Hopefully someone can get hold of it. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jack Greenberg (lawyer)

edit

The result was WP:SNOW closing as a keeper / withdrawing by nom. The major issues with this article have been resolved, especially to the satisfaction of the (somewhat notable :) ) subject. Some of the article edits have been oversighted due to privacy issues. Will update OTRS later. Thanks, all Alison ❤ 19:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A completely unsourced BLP of a largely non-notable lawyer (WP:BLP1E applies on the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund link). Moreover, the subject of this BLP has explicitly expressed a desire to have it deleted - see OTRS Ticket #2010020810005618. Please let's do the proper thing here - Alison ❤ 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point to a wikipedia policy that says that "the proper thing" is to delete articles on subjects who want them deleted? Or that otherwise bears on the issue? I imagine that Bernie Madoff, Anwar al-Awlaki, and a host of others might well desire the same.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain you'll find that there are no policies whatsoever which suggest we do the proper thing, which is largely why Wikipedia consistently fails to do same. Still, all I can do is ask people to be kind - Alison ❤ 01:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have policies -- such as those at BLP -- which take into consideration doing the right thing, try to determine what the right thing might be, and develop policies accordingly. Interestingly, your inline for "to be kind" led me to the words "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I don't see how deleting bios of people who are notable only because they request it will improve or maintain wikipedia. If the article needs protection, protect it. If it needs improvement, improve it. IMHO, that is the way to improve wikipedia. The subject of the article has a bio up at the Law School that is online; much of what is in his bio here is reflected there as well, so I would think that a properly written and administered article should not cause him (or us) concern.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has proven consistently unable to offer its article subjects a guarantee that they will not be the victims of malicious or inept editing being damaging to their reputations or careers. As long as we can't do that, Wikipedia is improved by deleting the bios of those who wish it, as doing otherwise is evil. I am functioning on the assumption that we can all agree that a reduction of evil is an improvement, though I may find variable mileage on that point. Steve Smith (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also true that the New York Times can't offer that guarantee. Deleting the bio doesn't solve anything; notice that he already has a second bio in Wikipedia under NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and his name could be added any number of places. It is evil to try and censor information and promote ignorance; I find that evil here to be greater than any good that comes from the minimal help that deleting the bio page would bring. Note that it's pretty unlikely for any issues to pop up on the page now that it's been featured here and many people have added it to their watch lists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that the New York Times allowed anybody to come by and anonymously write anything they like about the subjects it covers; thank you for enlightening me. Thank you also for advising us that you find the evil that would result from deletion greater than the good; with respect, I find Mr. Greenberg in a better position than you to make that evaluation. Steve Smith (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pro answered your comment fairly, considering how you worded it. You said "Wikipedia has proven consistently unable to offer its article subjects a guarantee that they will not be the victims of malicious or inept editing". Pro said, neither can the NYT. You then put words in Pro's mouth. The issue of the quality of the editors was not what you raised; rather it was the issue of a guarantee.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a WP:DAYENU established to address situations like this. THF (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: in addition to erasing unsourced matters, I sourced two sentences and placed a tag to prevent indexing by search engines. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. If notability were marginal, it would be one thing, but this isn't even a remotely close case. (Please discount my WP:ILIKEIT: Greenberg has long been one of my heroes.) I hope whatever nasties that prompted the OTRS ticket get handled, and the article gets appropriately sourced and brought up to the appropriate level of quality, but quality issues should be addressed separately from deletion issues. If there's a risk of vandalism and BLP violations, then provide appropriate protection for the article. THF (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Bearian has removed some BLP stuff and I removed the "Family" section of the article (it was unsourced and of little encyclopedic value; we really don't need to know whom he was married to/divorced from, etc). If there are concerns about whatever was in that section, perhaps the article can be referred to oversight to suppress the prior page history). In fact, in its current form the article is pretty well referenced. Nsk92 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per JBSupreme. Steve Smith (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Meets # 1 (and only has to meet one criterion), in that he has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. May meet # 2 in that he has received a highly prestigious award or honor at a national level -- if his awards are considered to be for his academic work. Meets # 6 in that he has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution. And finally, he meets the general notability requirement of WP:PEOPLE in that he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I don't see what wikipedia policy supports deleting the article because he requests that it be deleted (nor, as yet, do those who hang their hat on that reason cite one), and imagine that if there is such a policy we will shortly see the deletion of the articles on Bernie Madoff, Anwar al-Awlaki, and assorted other felons, terrorists, and individuals of questionable repute.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there is some negative material in RSs that we could find if we look a bit harder.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; a largely non-notable lawyer? He's argued before the Supreme Court in very influential cases, he's one of six leaders the NAACP Legal Defense has had. I can't find hard numbers on the Presidential Citizens Medal, but it looks like presidents give out no more than 30 a year, so there's at most 1200 of them floating around. His academics alone meet WP:ACADEMIC. He well and clearly meets Wikipedia standards for entry. His request doesn't override that fact.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per subject request. As JB pointed out, notability is not solid. We can do without this biography. Lara 02:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when JB made his comment I had not yet made mine. But your comment comes after I pointed to four criteria that he has met either squarely (three of them), or quite possibly (one). And he only has to meet one criterion. So we can better understand your view, might you explain why he does not solidly meet each of those four criteria? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As pointed out by Nsk92 and others, he's not merely notable, he's famous. The extensively sourced, non-negative article in its current condition leaves no hints of why this should even be a contentious discussion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm willing to listen to the subject in borderline cases, but this is not a borderline case. He played a significant role in many important civil rights cases, has several high honors, was dean of a major law school and holds a named professorship. In some cases the lack of an article on someone becomes an embarrassment to the encyclopedia and, if deleted, this would become one. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the subject (do we know it is really the subject who made the request?) had expressed a compelling reason to delete, or any reason at all, beyond some capricious dislike of exposure on Wikipedia as a medium (since all these mostly laudatory facts are easily available elsewhere) I might be inclined toward doubting my position. But without any reason, I'm not. Cjs2111 (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this matter has been resolved, or at least the mystery has been solved. The problem appears to have been created by a relative by affinity of the said subject, who has been a block-evading sockpuppet. Long-term semi-protection will help, too. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, inclined to delete borderline subject-requested articles, but this is not borderline, and is certainly not unsourced. The number of meaningful incoming links persuades me most strongly. If the article were an orphan, then delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course. The Jack Greenberg?! He decided a long time ago to do stuff that made him deservedly famous and emphatically encyclopedically notable. Get an acceptable version and protect it forever. Way, way, way past borderline notability. Plenty of senators and governors affected history less. Would we honor their request for deletion?John Z (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject is established to be a person of high distinction and consequently WP notable. I voted above for delete because of the subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Understood. Nor did you ever say he was not notable. (Though I remain surprised still by the assertions of each of your fellow delete voters that the subject is either "largely non-notable", or "borderline notability", or "notability is not solid").--Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to reinforce what others have said, per our current guidelines Greenberg is not of marginal notability. No doubt like a number of others here I was certainly well aware of him, as would be anyone with a good amount of familiarity with the civil rights movement. I'm extremely willing to delete bios of marginally notable people when the subject requests it and think we should do it in basically every case. The current policy on this is found at WP:DEL, specifically here, where it notes "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." It's just not credible to assert that Greenberg is "relatively unknown" or "non-public" so there's no getting around the fact that deleting would go against our current standards (undoubtedly some disagree with those standards, of course, and that's quite legitimate). Nonetheless, I'm still quite concerned given the subject's desire to have this deleted and wonder if there are other options here. First (and I guess this is for Alison), is it possible to get more detail on the OTRS ticket? I don't know if this is kosher or not, but it could be useful to note what the specific concerns were (obviously I don't want to infringe on the privacy of the request in any way). I'm also wondering if anyone has been back in touch with Greenberg now that the article is apparently improved, sourced, and stripped of some personal info. If he finds the current version acceptable, perhaps we could consider long-term full protection. He might be more amenable to the existence of an article if it was largely locked on a decent version. Finally I guess I'd be willing to consider going a bit WP:IAR and doing a merge if Greenberg was still not happy with this. However beyond NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund I'm not sure what our merge target would be, and that article might not be the best place to put a good chunk of info about one person. It's very hard to justify deleting this, but if that can't happen we should still try to do right by Mr. Greenberg as much as possible. Talking to him again via OTRS, if no one has done that as yet, might be a good idea for starters. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject appears not to have understood the range of options available at the time of his request to delete, such as page protection, blocking of a vandal/sockpuppet, etc. This is a great man, who has done much to help move the law to improve social justice in the United States. He just wanted to protect his privacy. He communicated to me that he extends his thanks to all of you who have removed the personal information. This very discussion of his notability has, I believe, honored him. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If my comments and actions were not obvious, I did get in touch with Professor Greenberg, and he graciously returned my email. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, it certainly clarifies things. If the article is kept (or maybe even before the end of the AfD), perhaps a request be filed at WP:OVERSIGHT to suppress the portion of the page history containing the "Family" section (which has been removed from the article). Or can even a regular admin do that? Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, per request, almost 120 revisions of the article have been suppressed. I'll likely update the OTRS ticket and, as nom, withdraw this AfD, especially if Mr. Greenberg is okay with this now - Alison ❤ 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A glance at the article talk page and IMDB would show that a major Hollywood studio is in the process of making a movie about him, based on his memoirs, apparently with his participation. Would this happen with a nobody, or someone who wants to be a private figure? This is one of the most notable public figures I have ever seen nominated at AfD. Deletion or merging would be ludicrous.John Z (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The movie thing is "in progress", Hollywood-speak for, "it might happen if we can get everybody to do the deals"; sometimes such projects get far enough to leak proposed casting, get some press (which helps them do the deals) and get an IMDB page. And sometimes those projects still never get made. ATM, this looks like such a one. However, the essential point here is that Greenberg is notable enough that Hollywood was seriously considering casting a famous actor to play him. Studerby (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/protect Established notability, article is now much more substantially referenced. Subject request is only a factor in marginal cases. If Charles Manson set an OTRS request from prison asking that we delete his article, would anyone seriously consider it? Or if Jimmy Carter wanted his article dropped? While Greenberg is not that notable, he's much more notable than all but a handful of sports figures, the majority of entertainers, and easily in the top 100 of American living lawyers (IMHO). When he dies, I expect at least minor coverage in all the national media. Studerby (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure) Swarm(Talk) 03:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flo Meredith

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines. Character is non-integral single-or very limited-appearance character from The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Article is completely original research. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Scott Mac (Doc) 10:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dottie Richards

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines. Character is non-integral single-or very limited-appearance character from The Mary Tyler Moore Show Article is completely original research. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Non-integral, limited appearance character, no evidence of notability. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Richards

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines. Character is non-integral single-or very limited-appearance character from The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Article is completely original research. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VALICORES

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

This is yet another article on an Fifth Framework Programme, part of a ongoing effort to get articles on Framework Programme projects onto Wikipedia. There is but one mention in Google Scholar, in an article written by VALICORES joint coordinators. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mania

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

Non-notable term. I see no results for Google news search from 1975-1985 CTJF83 chat 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha and their fans

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

Unencyclopedic. Puff piece with namedropping and quotes from arbitrary "notabilities". Geschichte (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All popular bands have fans. There is nothing exceptional in the content of this article to demonstrate particular notability of a-ha fans. Considered as a group, they do not satisfy the notability requirements at WP:CLUB. The bloated list of quotes is no more than fandom and again is not notable. Comments like "I've been a fan of a-ha since I was 9 years old" add nothing to Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless and unencyclopedic. This is just a set of uncited statements which I'm sure are true of the fans of any major band, followed by a compilation of quotations. There might be something here or there to merge to A-Ha's main article, if citations can be found, such as the statement that "[i]n 1991 a-ha set a Guinness Book World Record by playing for the at the time largest paying audience in the world: 198,000 people during the Rock in Rio 2 festival."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a heavily edited version to the band's article A few of these quotes are significant testimonies to the band's influence on other notable musicians, perhaps most notably the Coldplay and Keane quotes, and deserve their own headed section in the band's article. Much, like noting celebrities who attended the band's concerts, are far too insignificant for any Wikipedia article. In the middle are comments that are best absorbed into text as appropriate. For example, the Robbie Williams quote could be in a paragraph about the "videogenic"/pin-up aspect of the band as a notable comment on how they have aged. The Kanye West detail arguably fits somewhere beyond the "Take On Me" article. And, as Glenfarclas notes above, their Guinness World Record is unquestionably notable. But to introduce the concept of creating a category of article that is not about the band, nor their influence, but about their notable fans? My suggestion to the article's writer is to sandbox this article while it is deleted and you track down and format the citations, and ask a native English speaker to help proofread. I'd be happy to do that once you've got and properly formatted citations for the Coldplay, Keane, West and Williams statements; feel free to post at my talk. Abrazame (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fundamentally unencyclopedic article. Arsenikk (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Chamberlain

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

Delete. I am not finding examples of non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ewwww. Thanks for the warning! Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.

AfDs for this article:

Andrea Edwards

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

Minor actress. No notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselah Foundation

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

Seems to me to fail WP:ORG. Only trivial media mention was a regional BBC piece about the prize for making the oldest mouse. Seemed to be more of a puff-piece than actual interest in the organization. Notability, I submit, has simply not been established for this organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Numerous media mentions, some of which are in the references. Also here [7] and here [8], this might be relevant [9]. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not sure which media mentions you are referring to beyond the BBC stuff I discussed. That Wired magazine article doesn't seem to me to do the trick, if for no other reason than it seems to be more about the personality of the founding organizer rather than the organization itself. The other puff-piece from the LA TV station and the fact that the Maalox president gave them money doesn't really establish them as notable, in my opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I checked them more closely, they are not too specific. Regarding funding, the fact the funding is reported, as in here [10] makes the funding notable.
I looked in google news, and there seem to be quite a lot of references, albeit mostly passing, to the Methuselah Foundation from 2009 as against previous years. Here's one, for example, which has five paragraphs covering the Foundation. [11]
This is a fairly substantial reference. [12]
Here's a reference to the Mprize, specifically, in Time, in the context of amortality as 'an idea changing the world'.[13] Seems sufficient in aggregate to me. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it. The Times article and the Time magazine article are about the Mprize, which I think are both "News of the Weird" characters though it is debatable. In any case, the Mprize is not the Methuselah Foundation. The article from the ASU newspaper is indeed a bit more substantial, but reads a bit amateurish and is difficult for me to take seriously. In any event, I'm willing to admit that the notability is borderline, but I would default to delete simply because many of the proposed sources are so problematic in my opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Methuselah mouse prize (Mprize) has received a lot of reliable coverage, and is organised by the Methuselah foundation. So even though the foundation might be marginally notable, the prize that it organises isn't. See for instance here [14] - several dozen references in reliable sources. Keep 194.150.121.97 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Several commentators below make reasoned arguments for notability and User:Abductive in particular provides sources to meet the concerns raised by the delete arguments. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rejuvenation Research

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

Not a notable journal. No third-party sources have discussed it as a notable journal save one which was to a relatively sensationalist (and vaguely tabloid-like) story in the oft-deprecated New Scientist. It has not received the requisite notice or reviews required by our various print-media notability guidelines. Please do not be fooled by the health news coverage of various outlets which routinely cherry-pick poor-quality research to announce "amazing new cures!" to their desperate audiences. Those sources do not establish the notability of the journal itself. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do make our own investigations in discussing article content and in determining if something is notable. Cf the hundreds of discussions about reliable sources. If I were to put in a statement in the article to the effect of why i think the journal is notable, that would be OR. ` DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that work, Abductive; since editors often check the Wikipedia pages for journals when they're trying to figure out if it's a reliable source, I hope that this useful information gets added to the article before long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Ryan

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

Not notable since not professional and not competing at highest amateur level. Mabeenot (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. Perhaps a merge discussion on the article's talk page would be a good idea at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holes Only OLED

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

Technical nomination only. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original nominator's deletion rationale:

This article is non-sense
It says that this OLED (organic light emitting diode) does not emit light.
Indeed such a "hole only device" does not emit light, and therefore cannot be called an OLED... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selang (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 February 2010
  • Move to Holes only devices(plural) - I suspect the correct name for this concept is Holes only devices as the article itself already calls it. There are scholars hits with that wording. Saying that, the articles contents is the work of one edit. It has no sources and seems to require expert work of which it has not attracted in it's 2.5 years since the page was created. As Selang seems willing to work on it(as offered above) then I am happy to say move, otherwise delete. If it's deleted it could be created at Holes only devices anyway. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity. see final comment (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alicebot

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

Doesn't seem to me this should automatically get an article just because it was created by a famous researcher. See charlix. Pcap ping 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is confusion here. See timeline. The "Alice" from the 1999 NYT article is A.L.I.C.E., because the article says "Alice, whose full name is Artificial Linguistic Computer Entity". Alicebot, aka "program C" did not exist until 2000. These may technically be different programs (entirely new codebase), but even the author's site treats them together. So, merging to A.L.I.C.E. seem the best option here, unless post-2000 coverage is found. Still, I think two articles would confuse the average reader. It looks like program was renamed yet again back to A.L.I.C.E. in 2010; on the chatterbox site both the 2009 "Alice" and the 2010 "A.L.I.C.E." link to [15]. Pcap ping 21:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment. I'm WP:BOLDLY closing this as a redirect to A.L.I.C.E. because that article already covers the prizes won by "Program C" aka Alicebot. Pcap ping 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William James Fulton (loyalist paramilitary)

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

No evidence of notability, seems to fall into WP:NOTNEWS; only a handful of old newspaper articles are referenced. PROD tag was removed by an anonymous editor without comment. *** Crotalus *** 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Discussion regarding merging and redirection should now take place at the article's talk page. Non-admin closure. Swarm(Talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear optimism

edit
Nuclear_optimism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I'm proposing deletion for Nuclear optimism as there is a long standing concern that the topic is WP:Synthesis. I disagreed with this opinion but I have found no other supporters. Others have suggested changing the focus of the article but all of the proposals have changed the focus so significantly as to make it a different article. For the sake of not leaving broken articles around WP I am proposing that this simply be removed (unfortunate in my opinion, but so be it). --Mcorazao (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think it would be a shame to lose all of this content. Surely at least some of it could be merged into other articles, such as Atomic age. I would also encourage the nominator to further draw out User:Beagel on this issue as he is very knowledgeable about energy topics. Johnfos (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.The problem is not the title. The real problem is that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are mixed together in this article assuming that if you support the nuclear energy, you should support nuclear weapons, and vice versa. This is WP:OR and WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but there was a popular feeling of greatness about the miracle of atom-cracking in the 1950s, and that feeling did not distinguish based on the rate of energy release. Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what it is worth I resent the implication that has been stated repeatedly that the article is about the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and that people must be fervent supporters of both. This is not what the article is about. That is a straw man argument. As I had said before, if editors want the article deleted I won't oppose but I do insist that it be done for honest reasons. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I honestly believe this connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy is not intentional and the purpose of this article is something different. However, by reading this article, one got a strong impression that there should be clear linkage between them, and that supporters of nuclear energy also support nuclear weapons. Beagel (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I appreciate the response. The article says very little about this connection. It actually originally said even less. I think if you are reading that as the crux of the article (and you're not the only one) that probably has more to do with personal biases. I addressed that connection a little more explictly to address the concerns but to no avail (bearing in mind the article is still at a start level). One can argue legitimately that optimism regarding weapons and optimism regarding power are different. But 1) you cannot be optimistic about nuclear power without being at least a little optimistic about nuclear weapons since obviously the first can enable the second, and 2) there are experts that have been genuinely optimistic about both together. So though there is a distinction they are not entirely separate. Nevertheless, the article is not primarily about that connection but just about all of the optimistic beliefs about the use of Einstein's formula as a whole. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page in the book discusses how the Soviet Union launched a proganda campaign preaching the potential of "nuclear power", thereby promoting "nuclear optimism" in order to counterbalance fears of nuclear weapons. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect redirect to Atomic age. Any encyclopedic content is covered there.

Delete all material that is not about Proliferation optimism, per ™ below. --Bejnar (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The topic of the positive attitude toward nuclear power and weapons during the 1950s/1960s, and how that changed, is notable and covered in several sources. Atomic age appears to be more of a broad overview of the time since nuclear weapons and power were developed, rather than an examination of the attitude. This article certainly could be improved, but I see no reason why it should be deleted. –Grondemar 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Because this article is a confabulation of some pie-in-the-sky comments, an overview of nuclear development, crystal gazing on future nuclear development with a little synthesis thrown in for good measure. The concept of optimism in the development of science might be worth an article, if there are enough sources. Here the concept is worth a paragraph or two in the overview article Atomic age. Some of it is also covered in Atoms for Peace. --Bejnar (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I wouldn't object if the article were about "Proliferation optimism". It is not. Do please read it in detail. --Bejnar (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Atomic Age or alternatively split into two articles. The information on general, cultural nuclear optimism from the 1950's and '60's can be covered in that article. Proliferation optimism, which is what I thought the article was about seeing the title, is a separate subject and should not be lumped together like this. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Wu

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

Non-notable actress. WP:ENT requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," etc., but Sophie Wu (see at IMDb) has only been in a few one-off TV episodes and low-billed bit parts in a couple of movies. The article previously claimed an upcoming "main role" in Becoming Friends, but this was almost certainly a hoax, as no such project appears to exist. The claim was removed by the IP that contested my PROD without comment.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. None of the 'keep' !voters addressed the question of notability through reliable sources. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yext

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

Declined G11 speedy deletion nominee (barely). Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - currently lacks "significant coverage" in sources. The very limited coverage is generally of the "transcribed press release" level, albeit sometimes in a "best of" mode... Studerby (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The refs as I read them prove existence. They also imply 'up and coming' but not actually come yet - and as the above post says, 'press release', once again, as I read them. In time (possibly a short time), Yext may be notable in the future. It probably will. (We wouldn't have listed the telephone just as soon as it had been invented...) When there's a bit more to say, come back - or someone may have created the article for you already, maybe. In the mean time, I've added a few 'citations needed' to claims in the article that are unsupported. Peridon (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that was quick! All dealt with - except one point. TechCrunch is (and I quote them): "TechCrunch was founded on June 11, 2005, as a weblog dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies" and thus is not a reliable source. Sorry.... Peridon (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Find some better refs - for main refs no bloggy things, forums or anything that smacks of press releases or self-published. I'm not far on the delete side of neutral and prefer to save articles (unless they're total spam or drivel...). Peridon (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - how does this get resolved one way or another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarjgarza (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wait out the required time period (a week or so), and then an administrator reviews the discussion and determines whether the article should ultimately be kept or deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
$25 million is nice for them; it's also not particularly notable in the startup world. During normal economic times, there are lots of such startups each year, the majority of which fail, a minority of which succeed but you never hear about in reliable sources, and a very very few that succeed and become notable. Almost all of them work with venture capitalists who help them get those press releases out the door and into the trade press and on the news wires. For Wikipedia puposes, it establishes existence and sources for minor facts, but doesn't establish notability. The key to notability is "significant coverage". The Wall Street Journal' "coverage" is PR newswire transcription. The TechCrunch and AMNY references are "hey, these guys look interesting" flags in "roundup"-type articles (that then echo PR info); whether that's "significant coverage" or not is arguable and is dependent on source quality and quantity. Frankly, AMNY is a poor source; TechCrunch is so-so. If all the tech blogs were talking about X, then X would be notable (and true coverage would follow very shortly). They might be on the cusp of notability, or even fame, but I don't think they're there just yet.Studerby (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. articles notability requests have been met, the article needs expansion and insertion of sources. Will tag for improvement. (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L.O.V.E (album)

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

Procedural nomination, completing for IP. IP's statement below. lifebaka 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails notability for albums. Contested redirect. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beast of Burden (film)

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

Orphaned article on a non-notable short film, fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Created by Studio108 (talk · contribs) on two edits, the user has made no edits to Wikipedia prior to creating this article nor any edits afterwards. User name bears similarity to the name of the production company raising the possibility that the article was created for promotional purposes. I was unable to find any relevant Google or Google News results to show non-trivial coverage of the film in independent reliable sources. The only reference/external link (other than IMDb) is Style Weekly article and it is a dead link. Article mentions an award won by the film — Director's Choice award at the Secret City Film Festival. I am also unable to find coverage to show that the award and the festival would satisfy criterion #3 of WP:NF: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". The film does not meet any other criteria in WP:NF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearded Child Film Festival

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

Orphaned article about a non-notable film festival founded by a high school student. Created on a single edit by user Animaldroppings (talk · contribs) (the lone edit remains the user's only contribution to Wikipedia). Official site implies no notability of entries or coverage in press. Google search results show Wikipedia mirror sites and trivial listings of the festival on websites that allow end users to upload information (meaning no editorial oversight). Google News results show no coverage. The website of Myles Reif Performing Arts Center — the purported venue of the annual event — shows no listing of the festival in its calendar of annual or upcoming events. The notability of the festival cannot be verified through independent third party reliable sources. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bagley

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

AM broadcaster, local news anchor for a couple years on a UHF channel. Books are self-published from a print on demand publisher. Gigs (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bok Fu Do

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

Previously speedied as a copy vio. Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:ORG. Gnews got a total of 3 returns, 1 of which had nothing to do with the topic. General lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article cites 2 sources, both of which are owned by the subject. Has been tagged for notability since 2008. Note that this should not be confused with the earlier "bok fu". This style was founded later as a seperate one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Alternative Board

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

I don't see any reason this organization is notable. Several Google News hits, but they all are press releases. —Chowbok ☠ 18:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvida Tower Faisalabad

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability for this 25 story building, nor can I find any evidence that it is actually being constructed. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Warrior

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

Brand name of a hybrid martial art that fails WP:MANOTE and WP:ORG. Article depends on a one time article in a reliable source. Other refs that were used, but were removed because they discussion forums. Those entries were mainly discussing the validity of the founders claims. Has been tagged for notability and references since 2007. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Money as Debt

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

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources were provided after being tagged since December 2009, until the article was prodded, when three references were at last added. Of these one is a link to YouTube, as a source for a statement that the film has been viewed there a lot of times: this is not substantial coverage in a reliable source. The second reference is a link to a page which makes the film available for viewing, and gives a number of brief quotations from various people who tell us that the film is wonderful. The site on which that page appears is a site which avowedly exists for promotion of the opinions of the man who runs the site. For example, the site says "We are not a news desk - our aim is to uncover the longstanding treason committed by American administrations against their own people and against all the peoples of the world. We try to show how this 'pattern of treason' is heading towards a new World War for the benefit of a few..." and again "read the following pages and shake your head in wonderment at the caring and grateful government that continues to hide behind falsification of so called intelligence". I am not convinced that this is a reliable source, but even if we accept it as such, a list of brief quotations is not "substantial coverage". The third reference is to a site which invites us to subscribe to it "NOT ONLY TO RECIEVE THE DAILY NEWS DIGEST OF ALTERNATIVE NEWS AND OPINION BUT TO EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR NAVIGATING UNPRECEDENTED TRANSITIONS RELATED TO THE COLLAPSE OF EMPIRE". It is a personal website, run by a woman called Carolyn Baker, and the reference is to a page on the site where she tells us how much she likes the film. I am not convinced that this can be regarded as a reliable source, and even if it is it only tells us that one person liked the film. When this article was deleted at its previous AfD the closing admin commented "There is an apparent lack of substantial, reliable coverage from which to build a proper article." The same seems equally true now. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP
Firstly I find it almost offensive to the Wikipedia community and integrity for someone to post such a request ONE DAY after the article has been augmented with the previous request and on the SAME DAY the request has been made. Regarding notability, the first film has been viewed by more than half a Million people on youtube alone, showed at festivals, and has been reviewed by dozens of film critics and papers, including the academic research. so I find this claim ludicrous and almost political. (and sad really.. cause if you noticed we're currently in a time of global economic turmoil, that is possible only because some try to perpetrated their right for ignorance..)
Furthermore, the reviews in the official site are easily googable to find some of the original third party sources. Again, as has been shown and quoted previously.
Moreover, the particular JasonBWatson ideological claims from his own motivation contrasting one of the authors is completely Irrelevant. besides, why dig up stuff from those places and even bring it as an argument? Wikipedia is all about a neutral point of view. I mean, maybe she's gay too or something.. this is completely irrelevant. (btw, had you actually watched it, you would've noticed it has nothing to do with hating or loving the usa..it talks about money).--Procrastinating@talk2me 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion log shows that Money as Debt has been deleted twice, but only once was the article deleted: the other time it was just a redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, if people have done something destructive in the past, then it's probably a great reason to redo it in the future. I just love the arguments here:)--Procrastinating@talk2me 19:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"if people have done something destructive in the past, then it's probably a great reason to redo it in the future." I have no idea what you are talking about, I suggest you stick to making policy arguments. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. I am sorry that Diza finds the nomination "I find it almost offensive to the Wikipedia community", but I don't understand why. What was almost offensive appears to be that I did not wait longer before nominating. I am not sure why this might be offensive.
  2. Notability, as defined in Wikipedia's guidelines, depends on substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, not on such matters as the number of people who have watched the film, on YouTube or elsewhere.
  3. Diza refers to "the academic research". Is there a reference to evidence for this?
  4. Diza says "I find this claim ludicrous and almost political". Presumably, in the context, "this claim" means the suggestion of non-notability. I suppose that Diza is intending this as a suggestion that my nomination was politically motivated, because of opposition to the views expressed in the film. I wonder whether Diza has any evidence for this assumption of bad faith. The reasons given are entirely to do with the quality an quantity of the sources supplied. I am not aware of anything I have ever written on Wikipedia which would give any indication of my political views, so I do not know how Diza infers what my views are, unless it is just an assumption that anyone suggesting deletion must be doing it for political reasons. However, for the first time ever I shall now express a political opinion in Wikipedia. I actually support the stance of the film. However, I believe that Wikipedia should be an impartial encyclopedia, and that inclusion or exclusion of articles should be based on whether there are good sources indicating notability, not on whether I or anyone else supports or opposes the points of view expressed by subjects of articles.
  5. Diza says "Moreover, the particular JasonBWatson ideological claims from his own motivation contrasting one of the authors is completely Irrelevant. besides, why dig up stuff from those places and even bring it as an argument?" Unfortunately this is not very coherent, and I am not entirely sure what is intended. However, I guess that what it is intended to convey is that my referring to the political stance of the web sites given as references is because I oppose those views. In fact my purpose, as I mistakenly thought I had made clear, was to show that the sites in question exist to vigorously promote particular views, which contributes to my not regarding them as reliable sources. In fact this is not really the most central point: a personal web site is not a reliable source whether or not it plugs a particular political point of view.
  6. Diza says "had you actually watched it, you would've noticed it has nothing to do with hating or loving the usa". I have re-read the whole of the above discussion very carefully, and I am a loss to see anything there which suggests that it does have anything to do with hating or loving the USA. Even the quotes from the web sites cited only suggest a disapproval of the government of the USA, and what is more there is no suggestion that I can see that this view is expressed in the film. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources now provided are not brilliant, but I think they establish enough notability for the article to be kept. Thanks to the people who have taken a positive attitude in this discussion, and produced evidence of notability where there was originally none. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope we can focus on extending this article.--Procrastinating@talk2me 19:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party (Confederate States of America)

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

Procedural nomination. {{Hoax}} tag was added to article by North Shoreman (talk · contribs); see article talk page for rationale.

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is a well known fact (at least among Civil War folks)that there were no nationally organized political parties in the Confederate States of America. While there was certainly political opposition to the Davis administration, it never coalesced into a political party. On the articles discussion page I referenced George Rable's "The Confederate Republic: A Revolution Against Politics” and quoted from William J. Cooper Jr.’s “Jefferson Davis, American” to support this fact. Although a website link was added to the article, the link DOES NOT supportthe existence of this party. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I vote to delete it. I did not do it out of any malicious intent, I had simply thought that there was, in fact, a Confederate counterpart to the Democratic Party. Perhaps there could be an article (or mention in a Confederate politics article) about the "party politics" (or lack thereof) of the Confederacy. --Mrdie (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be what the ARTICLE says -- however where is there a RELIABLE SOURCE that says so? I will add a fact tag to that claim and, once that is eliminated, there is no substance to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the creator of the article admits (and thank you for your honesty) that he did not have any real source for this article; it was simply his belief. I like the suggestion of adding information about political parties (or lack of them) to the Confederacy article, but this one should go. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most Southern politicians had been Democrats before the war and were Democrats again after the war, but sources would be necessary to call them Democrats during the war when the political playing field was so completely changed. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intellicus Technologies

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable company - fails WP:CORP. Ghits amount to no more than press releases and listings/directory type websites. Also still littered with marketingspeak. ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Walker

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

Fails WP:Bio RM-Taylor (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I incorrectly listed in the category, was half asleep when I did this, apologies for the confusion RM-Taylor (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yakko's World

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

Like the Animaniacs songs "The Presidents" and "Wakko's America" whose articles were deleted here and here, the song called "Yakko's World" fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for songs. Neelix (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover on popular Norwegian TV show Absolutt norsk
Norwegian commercial
NRK.no readers choose Ylvis's version as 2001's best performance on Beat for beat (one of the country's most popular TV shows): [18]
Article about a performance on Dutch TV show IK WED DAT IK HET KAN!: [19]
The song has been translated into at least ten languages. – EdvardMunch (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unacceptable trivia. However, if someone is willing to rewrite the article to be about the album of the same name, with a tightly-sourced paragraph about the song included that doesn't veer off into trivia, I'd happily vote to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apeiron Island Hotel

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

Contested endorsed PROD. Non-notable design concept with no proof that it will ever receive investors, much less ever be built. The article is referenced pretty much with blogs and sites regurgitating and discussing a press release. I cannot find any legitimate news outlets covering this hotel. Steamroller Assault (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodicindo Yee Rodriguez II

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

Non-notable person; WP:N, WP:BLP. Contested PROD. Smappy (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Whitehead

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

Twice contested WP:PROD without a good reason, I will state my reason as I stated on my PROD nomination.

Clear cut case of a non-notable tabloid fodder who have only been in the news because of her death by drugs as stated by the press, connection to Pete Docherty, who is known by tabloids for drug taking; and her connection to a wealthy family; all this an ingredient of an USP for tabloids. No other forms of notability is available, neither was she ever notable prior to her death. Donnie Park (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Queensland Derby

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

No assertion of this existence of this as an actual derby, let alone a notable one. Dancarney (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dadabhai, Pijushkanti Bandopadhay

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

Not one reliable source available. Just a religious article based on some niche group's religious sentiments. Request AfD delete because of no reliable sources. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dayanand S. Nadkarni

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

Looks like politicians are wiki notable - he is credited. DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JaC64

edit
JaC64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

C64 emulator not covered in independent, reliable sources as far as I can tell. Pcap ping 09:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:ENT, and WP:MUSIC qualifications are extremely marginal. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaori Kusakabe

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

Not enough evidence of notability. Only one support role doesn't constitute a voice actor career and thus fail WP:ENTERTAINER. It has a Japanese Wikipedia article that doesn't offer much room for further investigation. My vote is Delete. KrebMarkt 15:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This person only meets one of the criteria for WP:MUSIC and even then it's questionable as she only sang on a track on each album, they're not her works. She hasn't been acting in enough productions to qualify under WP:ENTERTAINER. If anyone could bring up any other important contributions to productions she might barely pass but as it is she doesn't. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Dreamfocus (don't forget voice actors are big stars in Japan).--Karljoos (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not agree that her performing on a couple of tracks means she meets #2 or #5 of WP:MUSIC as they are not her albums, #6 doesn't apply (it may apply to Samurai Troopers but that isn't under debate), #10 is probably the closest you can get but there is a caveat and I don't think she performed the opening or ending themes so I don't see that applying. However, it is pretty clear that any 'real world' notability (as opposed to the wikipedia notability rules) is derived from her performance in the show rather than the music spin-offs. There doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:ENT, and the general notability guidelines are certainly not met. Quantpole (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not even close. Her voice is incidental on the albums. Fails WP:ENT, fails WP:MUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kuruppanmar

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

Pure hoax just like Ezhavathy. POV pushing. Inexistent Brahminincal connection Axxn (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: POV pushing just like Ezhavathy. Author claims it is a Brahmin caste, but actually it is a subsection (now obsolete) amongst the Ezhavas, a peasant caste. According to the author "They are Chathurvedi brahmins, who were known as Upadhyaya". But Kuruppanmar does not have anything to do with either Brahmins or Upadhyays. Axxn (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (Note: This !vote is from the nominator) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there aren't sources, then there's no way to keep this article. That said, if the Kuruppanmar were a subsect of the Ezhavas, then would it be appropriate to mention them there? And, if so, this title becomes a useful search term, and should be redirected to that target. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmala B. Limaye

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

Comparativley not enough papers to be notable DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPYRO Suite

edit
SPYRO Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DustiSPEAK!! 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen byrne

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

I have been able to find no reliable sources to confirm the notability of Stephen Byrne. Request a delete under AfD. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InterContinental Providence

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

A building "scheduled to begin construction in late 2007" according to the developer's website. No evidence that it has. No Google news results found, no Google books results found, in fact no evidence at all that this project is at all notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to The Foundations There is not a strong case to delete this article anywhere in this conversation. There is however, a very valid argument being made to merge it. Some participants here seem to misunderstand that nothing is lost in a merge, the content is still available and a redirect will point anyone searching Mr. Fairway's name straight to the content they are looking for. The article as it stands now says nothing about Ron Fairway that is not directly about his connection to The Foundations, and there is no evidence of independent notability. The relevant guideline here is WP:BAND. Although not a member of the band himself, Mr. Fairway's notability is based solely on his relationship with this group, and no evidence of any public recognition for anything else has been presented. The content can still grow and be nurtured in "the wiki way" regardless of where it is located. If at some point evidence of independent notability not related to his association with The Foundations is presented, it can just as easily be spun back off into it's own article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Fairway

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; online references cited only make passing mention of subject in as part of articles on The Foundations, so content has been merged to that article. Prod contested by article's creator. MuffledThud (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To WP:N. Panyd, if the article is referenced from MM magazine then that its good enough for me. I can do some research myself to confirm this. The article creator's an established and proven user ho references from both online and book and magazine references. That's good enough for me. If it's in book and magazine form then no problems here. (Mr Real Natural (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • NOTE The person who nominated this article for deletion had gone off like a bull at a gate. He / she first of all came across with a strange tactic of suggesting or using a connection to a supposed edit war that took place with The Foundations article. This was ponted out to (talk) that there was no connection with the Ron Fairway and Foundations article and the supposed edit war that took place there. And edit war is a wrongful term to use anyway. What took place was a person using the name of the Foundations for his bogus band and continually vandalising the Foundations Wikipedia page when he couldn't get his own way at using Wikipedia to promote his website. Myself and half a dozen other members had been continually correcting and tidying up the article. I find it very strange and surprising that MuffledThud would even attempt to bring this into the matter.
Another thing MuffledThud did was attempt to use the POV angle to get this deleted as well. There was no POV on my part. He / she went off like a bull at a gate again slapping on a tag , and by saying that it was POV without even bothering to check the references that have been there on the page as per [1]
Now this particular reference has been on the Foundations article page for well over a year without challenge. It's good enough for other Wiki users / contributors as well. It's been good enough for me as I have referred to it right in front of my own eyes. It's in my posession. The others have been from the magazine pages which I have personally sighted. Other references are online. (George-Archer (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Reply There seems to be a misunderstanding here: both the earlier prod and this AFD are on the grounds of notability, not POV, as explained in the summary above. I merged the article to one paragraph of The Foundations in this edit, since Fairway is only notable for his brief role in their career. This article should be redirected there, after which the references can be improved and any remaining POV issues addressed there. Fairway is obviously worth mentioning in that article, but is clearly not notable enough for a separate article. Can we please address the question of notability for this discussion? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2010(UTC)
Reply The misunderstanding was you going off and charging in headfirst. Throwing around the POV claim without checking to see what the article was about as per the reference [1] said and bringing in the "edit war that was not" as backup is irresponsible. Now the reference to Ron Fairway discovering the Foundations can be found here. [2] This is the website of the original founding member of The Foundations. His name is Alan Warner. He has stated this and that is a good enough reference. Fairway's association with the Foundations is prominent as the * person who discovered them, * as manager, * being dismissed and * taking legal action against them. References to these can be found in Melody Maker magazine, Roger Dopson's notes, Alan Warner's website .... etc .... etc (George-Archer (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Reply But since this deletion discussion is about notability, can we please stick to discussing notability? How is Fairway notable enough for his own article, since his only claim to fame is his brief role in the career of The Foundations? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article for now , if it is true that Rod Fairway discovered the Foundations then he is the discoverer of a million selling group. I've seen the actual references to him being manager of the group for a good part of a year so I suppose that should be sufficient. Interesting to learn that he actually sued the group for being sacked. Was it misconduct ? BTW - the article seems to have enough weight to stand on it's own. IMO it's notable enough. (Sharkey45 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep' - Yes I agree with the above member. Fairway is clearly notable for his managerial association with the foundation and as a discoverer of this group. Being the guy that took legal action against them also is worth note. (Marinesuper (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - But how is this notable enough for a separate article to The Foundations, seeing as it adds nothing to what's there now? By merging the whole of Ron Fairway to that article, only a few sentences have been added to the paragraph on their early years. MuffledThud (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To MuffledThud , I believe we should keep the article because Ron Fairway is notable as the former manager and the man who discovered them and being cast out as their manager and as the man who ended up taking the legal action. But that's not all. In case you've forgotten what Wikipedia is all about and the meaning of the word Wiki. It's a Hawaiian word. With Wikipedia, articles grow and evolve. Besides IMO notability already being established, I can see the potential for further growwth and evolution of this article. As it is now, It has taken on it's own unique form.I've watched the minor changes taking place over the last couple of days and I can see where it can lead. Snuffing an article out in it's growth stage makes no sense. Even if the article grows no more than it has now, I believe that it's present state warrants being separate. I do believe as I suggested before that there is growth potential in this article. Many of our best articles in Wikipedia are ones that have survived the challenges. So that's my 2 bob worth. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Reply But that doesn't answer the question: what has Fairway done, apart from briefly been the manager of The Foundations? The normal growth process for an article is to develop a section until it's too big to include all the detail anymore, at which point it's appropriate to spin it off separately. There seems to be no such justification here. MuffledThud (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To MuffledThud , I can see justification here to keep the article. Notability is now without question. I can see here that Fairway has at least 4 major points that tie him to The Foundations. I don't know how long Fairway was actually mkanager. Looking at the article here and some look on the net it would have to be over 6 months to 9. Seeing where and when the debut single Baby, Now That I've Found You charted and reading that he was sacked near after gives an indication of at least 6, possiblt 10 months. After being sacked from the Foundations managment, he took legal action. That is something else too. I see no reason to delete or merge. I see more points here and there to keep the article. Now in response to the beginning (your question), well if you're curiouis to find out what else Fairway has done then you had better keep watch on the article and see what else develops. Delete it and you'll never know. But besides all of that. I still maintain that the articles notability status has been established and it should stay. (Marinesuper (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Reply notability in conjunction with The Foundations is without question, yes. Notability for anything else, which would justify a separate article, is definitely not. Is it really impossible for anyone to mention here in the AFD discussion what he's notable for, apart from his brief spell as manager of a band? Did he manage any other bands? Anything? Anyone? Bueller? MuffledThud (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milestokilo, can you please expand: how does the subject meet notability according to WP:BIO? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, Incorrect actually. And ...... Not all content belongs there. This is also a separate article in the developmental stage. Further info will not be placed / merged into Foundations article. You've attempted to pull out all the stops to have your own way. Right from the beginning with your feeble attempt to try and tar this article with some errorneous somewhat misleading suggestion of an "edit war" when there was nothing of the sort with the Foundations article. Then you come across with POV when you didn't even bother to check the references that have been there unchallenged on the Foundations article for well over a year to two years. You've charged in like a rocket and it has been for no point at all except for your own measure. This article is in the developmental stage and evolving. Certain aspects and content will crowd the Foundations article at the beginning of career and belong here rather than there. Interesting that you've waited until now to try this merge attempt. What was it the other day ? You placed the [citation needed] tag all over the article when you never did the same for some of the very same Roger Dopson links [1] that appeared on The Foundations article. What next ? And I know that you were checking back and forth between the two articles, because if you weren't then you wouldn't have tried the merge caper ..... *Sigh*
Reply I'm applying the same notability criteria to this article as is used to speedy-delete thousands of articles about corporate CEOs, where notability is erroneously claimed by association with notable companies, and where the subjects are only mentioned briefly in cited sources. I don't believe accusations of bad faith over this are helpful, using wording like "caper", "misleading", "feeble attempt", etc., even implying that I must have some sort of WP:Conflict of interest over this in the article's talk page. I'm asking you once again, please provide evidence of notability per WP:BIO etc. that justifies splitting this off to a separate article. Nowhere is his notability asserted for anything other than his brief career with the band, all of which is now contained neatly in a single paragraph of The Foundations. If you'd like more time to develop the article, I'd be happy to copy it to a subpage of your user page, or move it to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where it can be more fully developed. As it stands, the article fails all agreed WP guidelines on notability. Please advise how you'd like to proceed. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I see that you're still continuing with your attempt to cover up your "bull headed" charge. You've made the error with the incorrect POV and "edit war" angles that were strange to see here to say the least. You should deal with your mistake like a mature adult. (George-Archer (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Reply Please refrain from disparaging remarks: let's please work out the notability issue here, rather than turn it into a slanging match. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, I'm not making disparaging remarks as you say or maysee , I'm just calling it how I see it. If I walk under a waterfall then that means that I have walked under a waterfall and not a water sprinkler. There is a a difference and I hope you'll get it. To the article , well Fairway's notability has been established as the discoverer of Foundations. There are other notable points with him and them and no doubt the article will grow. If you want to be the elimnator then perhaps Wiki isn't the joint for you. (George-Archer (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose merge. Hello Bjnar and this here is why. I believe we should keep the article because Ron Fairway is notable as the former manager and the man who discovered them and being cast out as their manager and as the man who ended up taking the legal action. But that's not all. In case you've forgotten what Wikipedia is all about and the meaning of the word Wiki. It's a Hawaiian word. With Wikipedia, articles grow and evolve. Besides IMO notability already being established, I can see the potential for further growwth and evolution of this article. As it is now, It has taken on it's own unique form.I've watched the minor changes taking place over the last couple of days and I can see where it can lead. Snuffing an article out in it's growth stage makes no sense. Even if the article grows no more than it has now, I believe that it's present state warrants being separate. I do believe as I suggested before that there is growth potential in this article. Many of our best articles in Wikipedia are ones that have survived the challenges. So that's my 2 bob worth. I know that I'm repeating myself here but I think that this is my 3 bob worth now. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Reply I've indented your comment, to make it clear to reviewing admins that this is a repeat of the reply to me above. Nobody is suggesting "snuffing an article out" here. My original edit to the article and first post to the talk page was a suggestion to merge on grounds of notability. No information will be lost by a merge, and if any future contributions indicate that Fairway is notable for anything other than his brief association with The Foundations, then it can be split back out again in seconds. In fact, if there were anything indicating notability per WP:BIO for anything else he's done (or doing), I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination now. But every time I've asked for this, the answer has consistently been "let's see what develops", "no doubt the article will grow", etc. What would your objections be to a merge? MuffledThud (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


References:

  1. ^ a b c Dopson, Roger. Baby Now That I've Found You, Sequel Records NEECD 300 (1st ed.). UK: Sequel Records.
  2. ^ Alan Warner website The Foundations
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @537  ·  11:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WinBuilder

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

Delete No evidence of notability. This article was tagged for notability in January 2007 and for references in February 2008. Although both tags have since been removed and replaced, removed and replaced again, independent reliable sources have never been provided. My searches also fail to provide evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Firstly, I have checked the links given by Pohta_ce-am_pohtit (who signs as "Pcap"). Apart from doubt about the quality of some of the sources, most of them give only one passing reference to Winbuilder (or in a few cases two). CNET is a download site which provides WinBuilder for download, and so the fact that it gives a description of WinBuilder is not independent coverage. A couple of the links are to sources giving "how to" instructions which include using WinBuilder, but they do not give substantial coverage. I am puzzled by Pohta_ce-am_pohtit's comments about Press releases, including "isn't even made by a company, so I can't find any press releases about it". If you want to get publicity for something, whether or not you are working for a company, one of the things you can do is send a press release to the press. Since simply copying such a press release, or at the most slightly rewriting it, is a much easier and cheaper way of getting copy that sending journalists out to research stories, news media often uncritically reproduce what they are given: that is what a "press release" is, and, as I said, this can apply whether or not a company is involved.
SF007 says "there are several third party coverage", but does not give any examples. Possibly SF007 was just accepting Pohta_ce-am_pohtit's word for it. If so then, in the light of the doubts that Panyd and I have raised about the value of the sources, this is of limited value. If not, then simply saying there is coverage without evidence is not helpful. Also SF007 goes on to say "the simply fact that it is one of the few methods to create Windows Live CDs also gives it a certain notability": no it doesn't, at least not in Wikipedia's sense of "notability". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you read what I wrote above carefully you will see that I did not suggest that how-to tutorials are never valid sources, only that these particular tutorials "do not give substantial coverage". JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the various tutorials are in the context of building some specific Windows PE-based project, e.g. a disk with a certain set utilities on it for a given purpose, as opposed to a general tutorial "how to do all the things that WinBuilder can do". Given the scriptable nature of the tool, that should not be surprising (tutorials are generally goal focused). I guess we agree to disagree on this issue. Pcap ping 17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you think we disagree on. I simply said that the tutorials "do not give substantial coverage" of WinBuilder, and I don't see that you have disagreed with that. Perhaps what you mean is that you think substantial coverage is not necessary to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, while the tutorials may have steps about other tools (depending on what kind of disk image gets built), they do constitute significant coverage of WinBuilder itself. Pcap ping 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meningitis (disambiguation)

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

All subarticles of meningitis, not really a suitable subject for disambiguation JFW | T@lk 08:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for exactly the same reasons:

Leukemia (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lymphoma (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


  • Delete The word is not ambiguous: all the articles linked to refer to the same meaning of "meningitis", but to different types of it. ("Cow" is not ambiguous because there are different breeds of cows.) The article Meningitis links to all of the articles, which is a much better way of connecting to them than a disambiguation page. Finally, who is ever going to find this page? Why would anyone ever type "Meningitis (disambiguation)" into Wikipedia? Surely anyone looking for information on meningitis would be more likely to type in "Meningitis". Precisely the same applies to the dab pages for leukemia and lymphoma. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all None of these are appropriate disam pages given the existence of the main articles. Not useful as a search term. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with all of the above; these are inappropriate pages and I can't understand why they were created. Graham Colm (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that, while the page lymphoma (disambiguation), should be redirected to lymphoma, the leukemia (disambiguation) and meningitis (disambiguation) pages should not be deleted, as there are different subtypes of leukemia and meningitis, including erythroid leukemia, myelomonocytic leukemia, and acute myeloid leukemia. All in all, I oppose the deletion of these pages. Immunize (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note- I am considering moving this article to central nervous system infection (disambiguation), and then expanding it to also provide links to the wikipedia pages on other forms of CNS infection, such as encephalitis and Neuroborreliosis. Immunize (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list, not a dab page. A move to any "... (disambiguation)" title would not help. Does the list already at Central nervous system infection not suffice? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – it's snowing. JamieS93❤ 13:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Wikia

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

Non-notable wiki, for which I can find two only two passing mentions in reliable sources. The first is in a PC World story here, which was provided by the author to another editor with the remark, "Here's your frickun source. Good night and au revoir." The other is here, amounting to one sentence in the 728-page book Handbook of Research on Open Source Software. I'm sure this site is popular among the people who edit it, but WP:WEB requires that it have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works," have won a notable award, or be distributed through a medium with significant independent editorial oversight, none of which is true here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardi gras

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


WP:ILIKEIT, but it's a non-notable neologism. May even be eligible for speedy. THF (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me at all. It's a natural pun on Mardi Gras. THF (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jahia

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

Promotion for non-notable software product; article by SPA with COI. While it looks well sourced, the coverage that is reliable is not significant, and I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and possibly Salt, as the article has been deleted three times and re-created each time. (The latest incarnation of the article was proposed for speedy deletion, which was rejected with the edit summary "Not eligible for Speedy", with no explanation why it was not eligible.) The author of the article has put a good deal of work into providing what superficially look like good references. However, most of them were nothing of the sort. For example, an "article" by Geoff Spick on CMSWire was cited. On the face of it, that article looks good. However, if you look carefully you will see that that article's only source is Twitter. Other sources likewise do not stand up to careful analysis. Then there is the section of the article headed "Analyst Coverage". This looks to me to be totally promotional in intention: much of its content is included, as far as I can see, just to provide material to attach citations to, and to serve as a pretext for giving promotional quotes about Jahia. Then there is the use of actually false claims. For example, the article said: In August 2009, Gartner the world's leading information technology research and advisory company included jahia into their "Magic Quadrant for Web Content Management" In fact Gartner includes Jahia in a list of companies which it explicitly states do not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the "Magic Quadrant", but which "clients might consider alongside those appearing in the Magic Quadrant". Naturally I have removed this false claim form the article. However, I wonder how many other claims might fall down if one checked enough, but unfortunately what I have so far found has already taken too much time. Then we have statements like "Jahia has also been covered by the 2009 Open Source CMS Market Share Report". Frankly, so what? The fact that the market share of a product has been assessed by an organisation that assesses the market shares of products is scarcely noteworthy information about that product. In the light of what else I have seen I wonder if that statement may have been included purely as a hook to attach yet another reference to, so as to give the impression that the article is well-sourced.
It is clear that the author of this article has done a very detailed professional PR job, going to considerable attempts to find what look like good references. The article has twice before been deleted at AfDs, and presumably the company wanted to do their best to make sure it looked good enough to keep this time. However, I can see no evidence at all for the existence of notability by Wikipedia's criteria. Many of the original "references" and external links have been removed as unsuitable for one reason or another, and those that are left do not establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Whether CMSWire is a reliable source may be beside the point: whether it's reliable or not, it's a medium of limited circulation and interest, unlikely to be read by anyone without a professional interest in "content management systems". Any notability guideline that allows such things in is failing.

    And all of these petty tech businesses selling services to other businesses are an Augean stables that needs to have a river diverted on top of them. Their interest in using Wikipedia for self-promotion and to hire PR businesses who have learned how to make superficially plausible articles will always outstrip the ability of volunteer editors to evaluate them. As the nominator shows, it's hard to assume good faith about these; in fact the more superficially plausible they appear, the more suspicious they look.

    At any rate, this is unambiguous advertising: Java-based web content management system integrated with document management and corporate portal features....From an end-user perspective, the front-end WCM is characterized by its in-context publishing interface. The Jahia WCM focuses on multisite and multilanguage capabilities. The Jahia overall design aims to provide modularity and scalable performance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as an individual lacking notability, per A7 and WP:V. As others noted in this AfD, reliable sources cannot be located. Information that cannot be verified must be removed, per BLP. JamieS93❤ 15:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Woodrow Wilson (fashion executive)

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

Clearly seems to fail the notability guideline, and there are problems with verifiability as well. A google search on the full name turns up a lot of hits for Robert Woodrow Wilson (who is clearly notable), but I'm not sure there are any at all for the "fashion executive" aside from Wiki mirrors. Google News archive stories pertain to the physicist and other RWW's who had obituaries. The two "sources" linked in the article say nothing about Robert Woodrow Wilson. It seems clear there is not significant coverage in reliable sources, and indeed so far I cannot even determine if this person exists, i.e. verifiability is at much at issue as notability. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process

edit
The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. A total of 27 hits on Google for this book. Ridernyc (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Google are you referring to, Ridernyc. I just did a search myself on Google and found this:

Results 1 - 10 of about 356 for Katia Tiutiunnik The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process

You were wrong in saying that it only had 27 google hits: it has many more and the book has now been acquired by the National Library of Australia and many other prestigious institutions. GoldbergEva

"The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compostitonal Process" is sold on many, many other sites besides Amazon and has been purchased by the National Library of Australia in addition to a number of prestigious university libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldbergEva (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC) One person should not have the power to decide whether or not something is "notable"--especially if they are not an expert in the field. GoldbergEva[reply]

There is no need to be offensive Ridernyc. LivingMuse is a colleague of mine and, no, we're not conspiring together. Also, what Google are you referring to, Ridernyc. I just did a search myself on Google and found this: Results 1 - 10 of about 356 for The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process by Katia Tiutiunnik. By the way, her page has been up for months and has been graded as a "B" class article, which is much, much better than many grades received by other articles on composers. Katia Tiutiunik happens to be a very original and notable Australian/international composer. Anyway, I'm sorry if I caused you any distress. I'm new to all of this and I just made some naiive mistakes.(GoldbergEva (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In other words Livingmuse is a WP:MEATPUPPET, I'm not being rude, there is no excuse for removing my comments twice, also as I have stated to you repeatedly, read what you are being told, I commented on the Google hits 2 comments ago. Since you missed it here they are again [35]. I'm trying to remain civil here but this is getting old very very quickly. Ridernyc (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry Ridernyc. Could you give me the chance to find some other articles on the book and perhaps change the references?? I know some are going to be published soon. I will refrain from deleting any entries. I did that in error so please, once again, accept my apologies. (GoldbergEva (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Cunard: I have just changed one of the references. Please give me the chance to find some more articles in the book. I just Googled it and over 350 hits resulted. Thank you for your understanding. (GoldbergEva (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for this feedback. I'll do my best to find some articles regarding this book. If I do not succeed, I will wait until there are more independent sources pertaining to this book (it has only just been released!!!) and then resubmit a revised version of this article. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience. (GoldbergEva (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete No evidence at all of notability. Article was created and largely edited by a single purpose account with no editing away from the topic of Katia Tiutiunnik. LivingMuse is also a single purpose account, editing only about Katia Tiutiunnik, and the two are stated to be colleagues of one another. Is there perhaps a conflict of interest involved? I have also found off-wiki reasons for thinking there may be. (Incidentally examination of the two editors' contribution history convinces me that they are genuinely two different people, and there is no sockpuppet involved.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone be so kind as to instruct me as to how to merge this page with Katia Tiutiunnik's one?? I know there are going to be quite a few publications about this book in the next six months so please forgive me for attempting to contribute to an article on the book before it became notable. No one should have written any article about it at this stage. Thank you. (LivingMuse (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

To do a merge, you can move the content in this article to Katia Tiutiunnik. Cunard (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this Cunard. I just tagged the article for possible merging. However, I just noticed that the book is already mentioned briefly on the page Katia Tiutiunnik, hence, any merge would require some editing. When the book becomes notable according to Wikipedia standards (and I know, as a fact, that publications on it should be released in the next 6 months or so) I'll resubmit the article. I'm really sorry for any inconvenience I and/or my colleagues may have caused.(LivingMuse (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have redirected the page since the authors article already covers the book. Ridernyc (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this. Once again, please accept my apologies for any inconvenience. (LivingMuse (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

please make sure you have multiple mentions in reliable sources that have no relation to you or the author before you attempt to recreate the page. 06:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Schwartz (talent agent)

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

Delete for lack of notability. No references to speak of, no claim to notability as a talent agent. Fails WP:Bio and WP:ENT. Notability is not transferable, the listings in the section /* Successes of The Gorfaine/Schwartz Agency */ aren't those of the talent agency. --Bejnar (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Joseph Murray

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

Well-sources BLP, but really seems to be a WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not news and it is likely that outside of this event, he is not notable. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per A7, zero indication of notability. And clearly nobody is objecting to deletion here, either. JamieS93❤ 13:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BGFS

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

Magazine with no indication of notability. I can find no significant coverage for this e-magazine. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete by another admin four days ago. JamieS93❤ 13:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Popichak

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

I cannot find any indication that this meets WP:BIO. The shows are both not on Wikipedia nor apparently notable. A search for "Alexander Popichak" leads only to unreliable sources like Facebook and a trivial news mention indicating he made honor roll in elementary school. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Bradford School. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Merge to Bradford School (Columbus) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Culinary Institute

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

Proprietary culinary school that doesn't grant its own degrees and seems to have no notability on its own. Wouldn't be opposed to merging with it's parent institution, the Bradford School. 2 says you, says two 05:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @083  ·  00:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Geschichte (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Great Education (film)

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

Production has not started. Violates WP:NFF. —Mike Allen 05:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @082  ·  00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rainwater LP

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

Article has no references at all. Minimac94 (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @082  ·  00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Billeter

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

Non-notable division II coach, not highest level of competition in sport. MBisanz talk 04:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting point. But I still think WP:ATHLETE is instructive. In any case the general notability criteria will always overrule the specific ones; the presumption though is that they don't conflict (sort of like the Federal rules of civil procedure are presumed constitutional...). I'll add a weak to my above though because you make an interesting point with the newspaper coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @082  ·  00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No arguments made to keep Kevin (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Black (comedy writer)

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

Non-notable writer, does not appear to have won any awards or contributed unique work to his genre. MBisanz talk 04:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @081  ·  00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No arguments to keep. Kevin (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Viberti

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

Should probably be deleted for lacking notability, essentially. This person apparently took one flight on one of NASA's Vomit Comets on a contract for a private firm, and happens to be Italian. If I'm wrong I'd love to be proven wrong, though. I've searched high and low (online at least) and I can't find any indication that he's taken more then the one flight though.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 02:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I contested a prod on this, as I don't think the lack of notability is entirely clear (which is also why my delete is only weak). Besides the sources in the article, there are also several sources about Viberti and Spaceland having put the oldest person in suborbital flight,[43] the youngest,[44] and a disabled person.[45] However, these smack of publicity stunts, and I'm not comfortable saying they really confer notability on Viberti.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that accurately describes my own take on this as well. I've worked on the article, and read through a bunch of references (many translated from Italian), and this just makes me uncomfortable. If NASA or an independent news source were to talk about him and/or Spaceland independently of reprinting or paraphrasing some press release, then I'd probably change my mind. Again, I'd love to be able to keep this, but the appearance that this may be based on promotional material and the apparent general lack of notability here just doesn't quite convince me.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 16:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @078  ·  00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Galyean

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

Contested PROD. This article is a biography of a former candidate for the 2010 Congressional race in South Carolina. He has held various political positions, but none that I believe satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. The references given in the article are mostly associated with Mr. Galyean's emplyoyer or his campaign. A Google search reveals many similar hits, but no significant coverage in reliable sources that would satisfy WP:BIO. PDCook (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. As opposed to some losing candidates, this subject has no coverage outside the race from which he withdrew. He didn't even make it to the election. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. as A7 before nomination was completed —SpacemanSpiff 08:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Mullins

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

Delete claims notability but no proof. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Kirkby

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

Appears non-notable. Only source I could find was this, but it doesn't vouch for any claims in the article. ~DC Talk To Me 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources for his appearance in cited theatre productions and films. This was the sole edit by Anguskirkby (talk · contribs). Possible hoax? --Vejvančický (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of third-party coverage giving evidence of significant roles on the young actor. The Monkey King is a notable character in a classical Chinese epic novel, which has had many stage or literary adaptations. He may well've been in one, but there's no indication it was a significant production, like this one. He appears to've had a role in a short film some years back, followed with a few understudy or extra parts, then the role as the young monkey king a few years ago; nothing since then. –Whitehorse1 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one Google news hit, from the BBC, where he briefly records his experiences meeting a few Olympians. This doesn't go at all towards verifying his claim to notability as an actor, and doesn't qualify as significant coverage either, thus he does not seem to pass WP:ENT. Cocytus [»talk«] 17:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual intelligence

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

Appears to be a neologism. No sources except one book. ~DC Talk To Me 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it, update it. There seems to be quite a bit of information on "contextual intelligence" in the literture, several books, several news articles, several professional and peer-reviewed jounrals. It may be a newer phrase, but that does not make it invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.25.200 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/merge Contextual intelligence is a notable component of the notable Triarchic theory of intelligence which is covered by numerous sources. The suggestion that this is a neologism is nonsense - it is a phrase not a word and the component words are well-established and used with their ordinary meaning. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Is the concept of "contextual intelligence" as described in the article (namely an approach to decision making proposed by Kutz in 2008) the same as or even related to the "practical/contextual subtheory of intelligence" of Sternberg's triarchic theory (which dates from 1985)? As far as I can discern, contextual intelligence in the sense of Kutz is not so much a theoretical concept in the study of intelligence, but rather belongs to the realm of inspirational leadership messages such as are proclaimed at seminars that typically cost lots of money to attend them. As such, it does not seem to be a notable concept, and merging with Triarchic theory of intelligence is not a plausible option. Just redirecting to the latter article, however, does make sense. 199.3.224.3 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are here to decide whether to delete everything including the title. The content which appears under that title may be amended by ordinary editing and so its exact state is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunters in the Snow

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

Article is full of original research and lacking citations (for 3 years). Article is a stub, but the potential of the article has not been shown to be sufficient. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but excise all the OR (a high-schooler's book report?) and keep as a true stub. The Los Angeles Times writes, "Wolff is one of our most anthologized short story writers; his seminal 'Hunters in the Snow,' 'Mortals' and 'Bullet in the Brain' show up, perennially, in college textbooks and syllabuses." A GBooks search seems to bear that out. This is, of course, yet another article (like 99% of articles on TV episodes) where the OR from a reader/viewer should be extirpated; but unlike most individual TV episodes, this story itself appears to be encyclopedically notable.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the same basis as Glenfarcias. Short stories are a bit of a problem--there might be some merit in combining the discussion of them in to one long article, but they do meet our requirements of having adequate sourcing to stand alone. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PunBB

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

For the same reasons as the article on its fork (which is also up for deletion)

There are no external and reliable sources documenting the notability of this open source forum software. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the FluxBB article exists this one should as well. This was original version before the split between FluxBB and punBB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbgamer45 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, FluxBB has been nominated for deletion as well. Pcap ping 02:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm(Talk) 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_February_9&oldid=1234127926"