Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 13

< 12 March	14 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Deleted under criteria A1 - Lack of Context. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discover150

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

This article is short and badly written. It is supposed to be about a bike, the Discover150 which appears to exist. I don't really understand the information the article contains. No source cited. Maimai009 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close since "16:26, 13 March 2011 Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) deleted "Discover150" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject (CSDH))" -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete Mandsford 23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emeralowe, Wisconsin

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

This is either a hoax or original research, as there are no sources whatsoever verifying the existence of this community. It's not listed in the GNIS, it's not included in WisDOT's map of Washington County, it's not in the Dictionary of Wisconsin History, and a Google search of the topic turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search for Emeralowe on Yahoo--one hit, Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not coming up with anything relating to a geographical area on any search. As this is Wisconsin, I don't think there's a language/spelling issue. --Oakshade (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Possibly a local name for the place or WP:MADEUP. A Google search only gets Wikipedia and mirrors. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought about nominating it myself and I did research around 14 hours ago. I found only 2 hits on the world "Emeralowe" using google and nothing on detailed Wisconsin maps to attempt to figure out the exact spot within a mile (kilometer). It appears to be made up. Royal broil 02:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also check the Wisconsin Dictionary of History and the DeLorme Atlas and there was no information. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, hoax CTJF83 21:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Hens-Greco

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

Not notable. DThomsen8 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some judge with very little amount of notability.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judges of state-level trial courts definitely do not meet the notability guidelines unless they've done something notable, which this one doesn't seem to have. --Lincolnite (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kyrene School District. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrene Centennial Middle School

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

I turned it into a redirect (it doesn't meet the GNG), but this was reverted by User:Shakinglord. There's nothing much here that's in the Kyrene School District article. Raymie (t • c) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kyrene School District per usual practice. There are hits at Google News but they appear to be routine mentions - nothing to set this school apart from every other middle school in the country. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kyrene School District per precedent. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maidenhead#Educational_Institutions. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courthouse junior school

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

Primary schools are not considered automatically notable (per WP:OUTCOMES) and there is nothing to indicate that this article will be able to address the criteria of WP:ORG using reliable sources in the near future and there are no matches in GNews or GBooks to indicate any suitable prospective sources. PROD removed after 24 hours without explanation so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly to Maidenhead#Educational_Institutions. Essentially no content in the article as it is. OSborn^arf_contribs. 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect We never have articles on primary schools except under exceptional circumstances, which are not present here. I'm not sure why this was brought here, when it could more easily have been merged to the locality, as is customary. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the two comments above. My brother actually went to this school for two years, and from what I've seen and heard locally it's about as non-notable as they come. Nothing online either. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egedege Dance

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

article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG & WP:RS. Amsaim (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Egedege Dance is a part of African cultural heritage, the content of our article is verifiable/fixable, see [1]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the article does fail to establish notability and also has bad sources. AFD is not cleanup. I did a quick rewrite that was lost when the site for a bit last night, and found enough reliable sources just through google books.--Banana (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 22:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews and 3 passing mentions in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis traditional Nigerian dance is not the best topic for G-News search. I agree, Egedege is not Samba, but the information is verifiable and valuable, see also Nigerian Arts and Culture Directory Project (NACD). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Couldn't find much in a quick google search but I'll take Vejvančickýs word that the article may be fixable, perhaps maybe from offline sources. Have any books been written about this that google hasn't indexed? We can always revisit this issue in a few months of nothing more can be found. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Damn this is a funny video, shame we can't keep it :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of Ze World

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

A case for notability is hinted at but no sources are provided to back it up. I searched for mention of this video in The Atlantic and The Today Programme and didn't find it. As far as I can tell, this subject lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources, which is required to establish notability. The only other claim to notability is that some "catch phrases" from the video are popular, which unfortunately is subjective and based only on the editor's personal experience. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fire ze deletion missile and hopefully someone can help this user with things like Requested Moves and notability. I plugged the video's URL into http://www.backlinkwatch.com/ and did come up with http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/17-things-to-do-instead-of-paying-attention-to-the-apple-event/71921/ - the link to this video being "16. Have a nap. (Then fire the missiles.)" That kind of incidental mention hardly satisfies my understanding of notability guidelines, and doesn't even give us any citable details other than that someone linked to a ~~YouTube video~~ YouTube version of a video that originally(?) appeared on Albino Blacksheep in a blog. Similarly, http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2011/03/10/inception_60_seconds_video/ mentions the video by name but doesn't explain anything about it, let alone make it the primary focus. You might want to take a look at the articles on things like Numa Numa to get an idea of the difference between something that's been forwarded a lot and something that merits an article. Hopefully that helps. Gonfaloniere (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I viewed this video some times ago (and I enjoyed it =) ), but it doesn't meet the notability criteria at all. Article about a video with catchphrases is simply non-notable. Wikipedia don't collect memes or videos in youtube.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diligence

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

WP:NOTDICT CTJF83 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is a very plausible search term, and we can do better for our end-users than a redlink. I also don't think it's wise to turn this title into redlink that encourages a new user to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not an article about a word and so WP:DICDEF is not relevant. Our editing policy is to diligently improve notable topics rather than to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding the point of WP:DICDEF. That policy does not claim to be only relevant to articles about words, and in fact many articles about words easily meet notability criteria (for instance, nigger, thou, and others). It's not saying that there shouldn't be articles about words; it's just saying that articles should not simply be definitions, which this article is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nutshell for WP:DICDEF is "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.". The point is whether we are discussing a particular word - its etymology, grammar, usage - or are we discussing a topic - facts about a particular thing or concept. The test is not whether we have a definition because WP:DICDEF explains that "both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions". The tests are laid out in Wikipedia:DICDEF#Major differences. Consideration of synonyms is one of them. Relevant synonyms are words such as application — I once won a school prize for "application". Do we have a separate article for application? We find that that's just a dab page and does not yet include that meaning of "the action or habit of applying oneself closely (to a task, etc.); assiduous effort, attention, diligence.". When we look at the word assiduous we find that it's a redirect to diligence. When we look at industry (disambiguation), we find that it starts "Generally industry is diligence, assiduity, hard work". So it seems that we have no other main article about the virtue of diligence/application/assiduity/industry/hard work. In choosing a title for this general topic, diligence seems a reasonable common name for the concept and we can then use redirects such as assiduous to manage the synonyms. I shall now demonstrate by applying myself diligently. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make into disambig by moving the contents of Diligence (disambiguation) into here, and then making that one a redirect to this one. That ought to satisfy those who suggest a soft redirect to Wiktionary because it already contains one.Reyk _YO! 06:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Translate it from the German Wikipedia The German Wikipedia has an acceptable amount of information about this virtue. My German is perfect, but unfortunately my translation skills are very bad.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Col. Warden, and based on WP:OUTCOMES - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velleity, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos. Core concepts are kept, rather than deleted or sent to WikiSiberia. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu (2nd nomination). Bearian (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustically_Navigated_Geological_Underwater_Survey

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuschrew (talk • contribs)

Keep I cannot see how this brief article does not meet notability guidelines. If the nominator can be more specific regarding the concerns about this article, I may reconsider. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Regent of the Seatopians's well-put keep rationale. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Search for its initials and the organization that runs it, and you'd find over a hundred news results. [2] It played a key role in exploring the wreck of the Titanic. Ample coverage for that alone. Such a valuable piece of scientific equipment should have its own article. Dream Focus 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basildon Borough FC

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

Football club formed a few weeks ago according to the linked website, no evidence of having played a match or joined a league, no coverage whatosever in sources AFAICS, might even be a hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly non-notable. Giant Snowman 21:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. --Jimbo^[online] 09:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no proof of notability. Zanoni (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kante4 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and per CSD G12. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh

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

An aeronautical college with no evidence of notabilty, search results indicate organisation exists but no secondary sources of note MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is non-notable and the article is just WP:SPAM, I mean "Our campus is situated in Uttara model town. Sector- 13, Road no- 01, In front of lake..Very nice, beautiful & lovely nature." Good grief. - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if not intended, reads as advertisement and so SPAM. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the article was copyrighted text pasted from the AIB website which was removed, but has been restored by the originator. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:COPYVIO and nothing in gnews fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Big Dom 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Monopoly

Anti-Monopoly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

The whole existence of this article constitutes a point of view WP:NPOV.

The key information on this page is already covered on Monopoly (game) and in History of Monopoly a single extra sentence in the Monopoly (game)#Variants could cover this article.

The game is not distinct enough from monopoly to be considered as anything other than a variant, The game board is almost identical to monopoly the board layout box design. Earlier games such as Go for broke involved reversing the monopoly objective.

The game has mention in RS because of the news event which is already covered on the monopoly pages. The opening statement that the game was "invented in response to monopoly" is uncitable from RS. The image of the game poses an issue as it the cover art rights belong to a different entity as Anti-Monopoly is a trademark owned by Hasbro

The RS come from the story of the Lawsuit and are only indirectly about the game.Tetron76 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Ralph Anspach, merge any worthwhile content there. I checked and couldn't find any other sources. The most notable feature of the game is the lawsuit generated by it, which should be covered in the Ralph Anspach article. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This article topic is ~~just as~~ notable ~~as the Free Parking, Monopoly Tycoon, Monopoly: The Mega Edition, etc. board game articles~~. The game is distinct enough from Monopoly to warrant a separate article and is not affiliated with the Parker Brothers version. This acceptable source is referenced in the article and more info can be added to the article from it. Info can also be sourced from the game's official site. Restructuring and copy-editing should be performed on the article, but the WP:NPOV doesn't apply for a deletion argument since it does not appear there are any opinions or non-neutral statements currently in the body of the article. The "Related Games" section contains one or two unsourced statements such as "was and is very popular", but this can easily be edited out. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT It doesn't matter if similar articles exist. Each article need to demonstrate notability on its own by providing sources, or by the sources at least existing. After searching for them myself, I have come to the conclusion that there aren't sources to demonstrate notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment—1 and 2 are both sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment not really relevant to the discussion but I am not sure that #1 the washington free press which is community journalism and has facts that are inconsistent with other sources on the legal issues and carries and advert is a RS.Tetron76 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anti-Monopoly is covered in a wide variety of sources[3] (a few of which are already cited in the article), and while the coverage is mostly about the trademark dispute, that coverage is lasting: the dispute became a significant benchmark in trademark law, discussed in many casebooks. With respect to the suggested merger to Ralph Anspach, I'm inclined to think that's backwards; it appears to me that the game is more notable than the person.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the WSJ covers the game and its controversy, it's sufficient. While the GNG expects multiple RS, the WSJ is so definitive that a single substantial article there is plenty of coverage to establish notability as far as I'm concerned. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a fan of Monopoly, I vote for "keep" per above comments. I see nothing against WP:NPOV.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

important information BTG Project guidance For a games article should include boardgamegeek in this case an ad page so invalid but it mentions two very important facts [4]

There has been more than one game called Anti-Monolpoly. It is not clear which game is being referred to in the articles
it is a self-published game if this was a self published book would it get a wiki page.

Also should include the official game page [5]:

this is an attack page which is primarily against monopoly than on the game itself.

The page also clearly demonstrated that the authors book cannot be regarded as RS for information on

the game. This leaves insufficient verifiable material to make an article, I have placed what I think remains to the Monopoly (game)#variants.

Hasbro own the trademark to Anti-Monopoly he could simply rename it to the legal antiopoly therefore the name of the game has a political opinion so the material has to be sourced carefully.
The image of the box lid does not pass wikipedia's image policy.
The RS are not directly about the game and the game only has passing direct reference all describing it in terms of monopoly.

Enough sources stating that something is not notable can make something notable on wikipedia without meaning that there is the information to warrant an article hence this is about POV. There is a case for an article about the lawsuit but this is already covered in other articles and most importantly should not be named Anti-Monopoly which is how NPOV applies to an AfD.Tetron76 (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although a redirect to its creator, Roger Anspach, would be an acceptable second choice) It opened the door for the vast majority of Monopoly variants came from. Very notable for its history [6]and [7].When Parker Brothers lost its suit [8], the market was thrown open for countless locally sold board games that get played once and then put away. Mandsford 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep My opinion is that all reasons for deletion are inappropriate or insufficient

The whole existence of this article constitutes a point of view -- how? no explanation is given; I find this to be false.
The key information on this page is already covered -- not a proper Wikipedia deletion reason
The games are too similar -- I believe it's game rules that matter. For example, Go and Gomoku are two very different games in spite of both using the same board and pieces. I find the rules of Antimonopoly to be as different from Monopoly as those of Snakes and Ladders.
The comment about the opening sentence is a minor point which can be fixed with a small edit.
The image of the game board cover here is considered to be fair use, just like the monopoly logo on the monopoly page is considered to be fair use. If we delete this page because of the image, I believe we should also delete the Monopoly page for the same reason. Gabiteodoru (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Oops! Apologies for deleting your vote Mandsford -- didn't mean to. Thanks Arxiloxos for catching that and restoring it!Gabiteodoru (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

While I am clearly going to lose this debate I would like to respond to your points.

The image on the box is a replica of a monopoly box which is still in copyright as a result the copyright doesn't belong to the game creator. Therefore, fair usage laws don't apply and the image policy is a legal position not consensus.
The game would not pass wikipedia's notability standards if it was not for the newspaper article which the comments on the WSJ page complain about there being no information on the game and the rules certainly don't add anything of note to the world of rules.
which set of rules? No game of note gets re-issued as a different game under the same name by the same designer.
The key information as in lawsuit already being covered means that there is no new information that can be added with citations from RS on the subject of this game. If there is not enough information for an article then there should not be an article and the advice given is that you should consider if there is a more appropriate place where the information can go.

Perhaps, it would be possible to salvage a page along the Lexulous (Scrabulous) lines although there are not really enough RS in this instance and I still feel the name of the page would be inaccurate.Tetron76 (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No actual reason for deletion given. Sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion argument looks like a "shotgun" attempt hoping that something sticks. The only things that stick are content issues that are fixed by improving the article. If the article needs to be improved, improve it. Article in WallStreet Journal is not about the game? See WP:InUniverse, "The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.". Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as many other obscure board games which have gone unchallenged, eg. Rubik's Domino. Krollo (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN 2030 FIFA World Cup bid

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Given that there isn't even an article about the 2026 FIFA World Cup, let alone 2030, it seems a bit daft to have an article about a rumoured 2030 bid." by Jmorrison230582. The PROD was removed with no reason given. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per original PROD rationale, nothing but rumours and hearsay - which has no place on Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 21:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL speculation CTJF83 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of Ctjf83. Kante4 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ctjf83. Simply because 19 years are too remote.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Bad grammar, as well as this bid not being offical. Intoronto1125 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and tell ASEAN that they are wasting their time, as to AFC location will be eligible for the two editions after 2022. Kevin McE (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider There are also article Argentina-Uruguay 2030 World Cup bid in Wikipedia (please search by yourself in Google). Now, they have officially bid, but it means several years after the article firstly appear in Wikipedia at 2007. ASEAN will bid after ASEAN Summit on May 2011. I think please ASEAN and Argentina-Uruguay bid sportively. There are many reasons FIFA choose the host and I think not only for centennial purposes. The host of Centennial Olympic Games of 1996 was not Greece (one of the worst economics country in Europe right now). So, every possibilities is possible. Might be China want to bid also. The viewers of football games in China are the biggest right now and some of European matches have played (and plan) at around noon to accomodate China's prime time viewers.Gsarwa (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they do so bid at that time, a request could be made to desalt the article: until then, it is WP:CRYSTAL. But not "every possibilities is possible": after South Africa 2010, CAF teams couldn't apply for 2014 or 2018; due to Brazil 2014, CONMEBOL teams could'nt apply for 2018 or 2022; Russia 2018 disqualifies all UEFA members for 2022 and 2026, and Qatar 2022 will preclude AFC bids for 2026 and 2030. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:G1 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Clown

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

Unsourced, implausible story, looks like a hoax. January (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a good faith search for reliable sources, and couldn't find any. This article should be considered a likely hoax unless someone can find reliable sources discussing the company in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The picture allegedly of their derelict headquarters has clearly had the sign pohtoshopped (angle is wrong). Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Photo does appear to be poorly doctored in an obvious way. Even if it wasn't a hoax, it wouldn't be notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a joke article of some sort or another. Certainly not an encyclopedia-worthy subject in the unlikely event that this is not a complete hoax. Carrite (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a hoax and probably even an attack page if the subjects named in the article are real. Nate • (chatter) 04:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I can't find any results any related to the article. All these pictures appears to be hoaxes and photoshopped. JJ98 (Talk) 06:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the picture made me laugh, but the comments above me explain why it should be deleted.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimit Sanghvi

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

I do not believe this article meets the notability threshold for Wikipedia, for academics. There are two references showing the papers the object himself has written, which seems to imply if allowed, anyone who has written an essay at a higher education or research institute could have a valid article. The award that the object has won is not notable itself. Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. Not even close to passing WP:PROF. Not only has his research not had enough time to make any impact as measured by citation counts, but as a masters' student there's little way of distinguishing his accomplishments from those of the more senior researchers he works with. And I have a very low opinion of WSEAS, the people who gave him their award: basically I think of them as a scientific vanity press, making money by having low standards for their conferences and then collecting high registration fees. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete for above reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am glad that the discussion is on for consideration for this article in Wikipedia. Well these are the points I would like to discuss about.

1)To Eugene-elgato : Wikipedia asks that the subject be notable only, not important. If people are discusssing someone, then it makes sense to offer further information from reliable sources, presented from a neutral standpoint, or offering a balance of opinions where diverse views exist. Without the physical limitations of a printed format, Wikipedia can be a bit more liberal in determining the importance of its content. Regarding references, I have edited it and added two more references to correctly direct towards the published work. 2)To David Eppstein : Opinion about WSEAS is personal and I believe a personal opinion is not enough for the article to face deletion. I hope this is not taken into discussion. Also, academic qualifications were inserted with the consent of previous administrator (Selket). It shall be edited. The research shall have a significant impact in its (current) time, but then, I think it possess no threat to the article as it is not necessary that the current research should be a huge world demonstration. Note that till now, this research is THE only research yet produced globally. I would like to know more viewpoints regarding this.

Thank you. Jimcham17 (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true that it has no physical limitations and certainly we have more room to put additional information. However notability still isn't clear to me even on a wider reading. And I very strongly disagree that opinion onf WSEAS is personal. It's about as objective as you can get and goes to the very root of notability. On one end would be the Nobel Prize which is highly reputable and used as a criterion in the Shanghai listing of the worlds best universities- I would suggest WSEAS is nowhere near, with little reputation.Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's snowing snowballs here... Let's come back in another 15 years or so. Far away from meeting any of the criteria of WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Ashraf Khawaja Nozair, working on Rosetta Space project(COSIMA instrument), as a member of Finnish Science Team. I strongly recommend this young scientist and his aesthetic work on "Ozone Layer Generation". I support him as the only person to have done it and irrespective of the Academics, viewing neutrally, I wish to let this page exist. I would also like to suggest others to look at him under WP:CREATIVE with the following points :-

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Thank you.86.50.66.38 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I were in a cynical mood, I'd say that the last two !votes have convinced me, but seriously, it's David Eppstein's arguments that win the day. --Crusio (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one paper does not an academic career make. Might be notable at one point but I'm not finding sufficent references to make that day today. RadioFan (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:A9 by User: Boing! said Zebedee. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Face

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

Self-recorded and self-released album, according to the artist's own article (which is tagged for CSD:A7). PROD contested by author -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted Artist's own article has been deleted as A7, making this an A9 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Article deleted. 04:29, 14 March 2011 User:Metropolitan90 deleted "Line of succession today" ‎ (WP:G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession today

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

The main problem with this article is that no reliable sources support the detailed information here about living people. See WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:RS. Additionally, because the Ottoman thrown has been abolished, there is a problem with notability. See WP:N. On top of all that, the people listed here are not public figures, and listing them here could actually harm them because they are being listed as successors to positions of power that now belong to an entirely different government. Incidentally, this material was previously located in a different article, and that other article was the subject of a BLPN discussion here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus to keep - merge and redirect discussion can continue on the talkpage (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former Muslims United

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

Doesn't appear to be notable - all GNews and GBooks hits are trivial, and often are actually things like "Darwish is founder of Former Muslims United" rather than actual coverage of the organizations. (Darwish seems to be notable, but notability is not inherited.) No significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Very notable, decent press. It is a new organization and seems to be growing.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה -- DQ (t) (e) 20:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of some of this "decent press"? I've stated that everything I found is either trivial or is not actually coverage of the group, so it would be helpful if you would respond to this criticism with examples of sources that I might have missed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nearly a million hits on Google, reasonably notable board of directors. - Haymaker (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So "they have a lot of Google hits, and notable people are associated with them"? Ie. exactly the WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:INHERITED arguments I addressed in my nomination? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this is clearly a notable organization based on sources that can be readily found using Google search (including Google Scholar and Books).Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of some of these sources? I've stated that everything I found is either trivial or is not actually coverage of the group, so it would be helpful if you would respond to this criticism with examples of sources that I might have missed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about a merge to Nonie Darwish? Notability is marginal at best but the info might still make a good fit there. If there is more coverage later the article can be restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any content to be merged (the Darwish article already mentions the group, it just quotes a mission statement rather than generically describing them). If there were content, I'd support a merge, but there doesn't really seem to be anything. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(would a redirect be good?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Smarkflea (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a reason? In particular, if you have sources that other editors might not have found, could you link them or add them to the article? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, possibly merge and redirect to Nonie Darwish. There is some press about the group[9][10][11]. Not all of it mentions Darwish[12][13][14], but as others have correctly noted, the current article doesn't say much that couldn't be suitably covered at the Darwish article. I do think there is a smidgen of additional content that might be added to that article, identifying the group in more detail and mentioning a few of its notable activities. So I think this is a keep (as a reasonable search term if nothing else), but a merge and redirect may be appropriate by post-AfD editorial consensus.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The stories you linked have the same problem I've been telling every other editor about. They are either not third-party sources (an editorial by the group's president is not independent coverage) or their mention is absolutely trivial. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we have a good faith disagreement about what is "absolutely trivial". In my reading, this group has managed to insert itself notably into a number of notable controversies. In the end, I am not sure we are disagreeing about very much: I would in all probability be fine with a merge/redirect to Nonie Darwish (until there's more substance here), so all we're really talking about here is whether to keep the edit history of this article with the redirect. Per WP:PRESERVE, I see no reason not to do so, given the existence of actual sources which would be useful in the Darwish article and in the future if there's good cause to restore this as a separate article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. I have added references from the NY Times, Huffington Post, NY Post, Fox, CBN, and others. --Vaerju (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karren Dunkley

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

Very doubtful notability, resting only on the article in the Gleane; the Time reference merely mentions Philadelphia. Superintendents of schools in large systems are notable, but not usually their assistants. I earlier refrained from speedy deletion to give the article a chance, but the editor has made it into a very highly promotional article for the district. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per DGG. Sounds like a promising young lady that might be notable someday, just not today. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. For a case like this, the appropriate standard is WP:GNG. But we have one independent and nontrivial reliable set of stories about her (the Philly Tribune / Jamaica Gleaner pieces), where I'd prefer to see multiple ones with some chronological spread. The Time Magazine piece also mentions her but only trivially and doesn't really have anything usable about her, and the other pieces I could find in Google news were similar. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Big Dom 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molehill Empire

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources as a starting point and found nothing, only primary sources and unreliable advertisement/linkfarm/press release sites. The WPVG custom Google search returned exactly two hits, a trivial 2-sentence mention in a blog and a site that (somehow) doesn't even contain the words "Molehill Empire". Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing resembling an independent reliable source on this game, unfortunately. Someone another 00:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source that Andi47 has found looks good to me, but a single source doesn't provide enough detail and won't lead to a balanced article, if another is out there then I'd happily switch to keep. Someone another 17:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this does appear to be a rather large online gaming site (8 million users per one RS), and there are RS mentioning it (e.g. 1 2 3, search for the German name of the site, "Wurzelimperium"). In-depth coverage I haven't found though. Amalthea 18:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether games magazines qualify as RS, but anyway a quick search gives a few hits on the german "Wurzelimperium", e.g. 4, 5,6. I haven't searched in English magazines, though. --Andi47 (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game magazines can certainly count, as long as it's legitimate journalism. For our needs, sources must be reliable, independent, and non-trivial at the same time, and we need multiple sources that fit this description. All of the sources I've seen are either reliable but trivial (a tiny mention in a newspaper, for example), non-trival but unreliable (fan sites), primary sources (press releases), and so on.

For example, a WPVG custom Google search using "Wurzelimperium" (the German name of the game) returns zero search results. There's a lot out there, but it's nothing we can build an article around. Wyatt Riot (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how that custom search works, but it for sure doesn't return non English results, so I don't think that it should be used for this case. Further the game is for sure one of the most widely known browser games in Germany, Poland and other countries within the European Union - Hoo man (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only returns results from sources found by WikiProject Video games to be reliable. If you can suggest additional sources which are reliable and non-trivial, please do. We've got a single source thus far (~~stuttgarter-zeitung.de~~ gamestar.de) which may meet our requirements, and we need multiple. Popularity alone doesn't give us material to write an encyclopedia. I hope this helps! Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GameStar is one of the top three video game print magazines in Germany. The link found by Andy certainly is non-trivial coverage by a reliable source. Nomination for the German developers award ("Deutscher Entwicklerpreis") in 2008 is also significant. I now think it passes WP:N. Amalthea 11:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was editing from work and got my sources wrong. GameStar does appear notable, yes. (My German is a little rusty but the article is non-trivial and the author looks to be an actual game journalist, yay!) Stuttgarter-zeitung.de is notable but trivial so I've struck it out in my comments above. Nomination for an award also doesn't cut it; to meet WP:WEB, the subject has to win, especially for these industry events where the "insiders" (the developers themselves) have a part in the nomination and voting process. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, with some research I've found the following: 1, 2. Further the German version was mentioned in the printed version of the Computer Bild Spiele (which I don't have a copy of, but you can find some notes to it using google 3) and it had TV ads on several big German TV stations (eg. Pro7 and the German version of Mtv) Commercial: 1 - Hoo man (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addition which finally should have enough weight to keep it. First the page is the 88. most visited site in Germany (1) and here is a short list of mentions of the polish version: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - Hoo man (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity and simple search result hits don't matter. We need reliable and non-trivial sources. All of the sites you linked are trivial except for one (pobierz.pl) and that doesn't even list an author. To write an encyclopedia article we need legitimate game journalism, not short summaries on game spamming sites. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some more sources: 1, 2, 3, 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andi47 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All poor-quality blogs with informal/amateur writing on unreliable sites. None of them even list an author. Please read through WP:Sources or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for more information about sources that we value. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Browsergamez might be reliable: about page shows owning company, address (usually a good sign) and list of editors.~~ Never mind, clearly just a publisher's description. Marasmusine (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Hollow Lake

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

I deleted this earlier as promotional, but it has been re-created. I am in doubt whether an article can be written about the lake itself, which is only 200 acres, but if so the present article should be deleted and a new one started. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, and if needed, recreate as article on the body of water, per DGG. As it stands, it is an article about an HOA, which itself is not notable. Citations do not establish notability of the HOA. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:ORG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Shire Reeve (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence that Dutch Hollow Lake is a corporation. Actually it is a well-known reservoir, and I've rewritten the article accordingly. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dutch Hollow Lake is well known. It is common to have property owners associations to provide some regulations involving lakes in Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rewritten article demonstrates this is a notable reservoir.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its present format - geographical features are notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 20:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buysellads

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

Online advertising/marketing company which does not meet WP:NCORP. The article has been speedily deleted a couple of times (as Buysellads and BuySellAds) over the last month as an A7; I believe that the current article (which does not have the same creator as the previous versions) is essentially identical to the deleted articles, but as it claims marginal notability it might not be considered to be eligible for speedy deletion.

There are several references but nothing that constitutes substantial coverage in a reliable source, much less multiple reliable sources. The tone is promotional, which could be fixed, but the lack of notability is harder to get around. bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE A quick view of the sources makes it pretty clear that this doesn't meet notability guidelines and verges on spam. Not a speedy delete, but not notable and changing the tone can't fix that. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Thank you for letting me know that there are changes to be made in order to improve the article. I request you to kindly guide me on the references as to references from which kind site do make the article notable as there is being a problem which the references already mentioned.Also wanted to know which tag i had to include in order to request other senior users to help me on the notability of this page.In the meanwhile i too will see if i can find better references. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another online business. Unambiguous self-promotion: In less than 3 years the company managed to build a strong reputation among the web design and development vertical and at the beginning of 2011 the company's inventory counts around 3,000 successful publishers selling ads and 2,000 quality advertisers who use BSA to target the audiences that are right for their brand. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. will remove that section from the page. Anything else that sounds self promotional will also be removed from the page.Please do guide. Thank you again. Venomarv (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I deleted that part and edited very careful the rest of the page in order to avoid any kind of confusion.Have removed all the self promotional artifacts to improve the neutrality of the article.Please do provide me with a feedback whether there is anything else to be done. Thank you. Venomarv (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for lack of sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. The page does list one article from a Reliable Source, the Boston Herald, but notability requires more than one article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added linkages from other wiki articles to counter the status of orphan article even though it is not a criteria for deletion according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan . Also have added two new links to improve the notability. Further feedback will be appreciated. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying very hard, I'll give you that. But there just may not be enough material out there to cite, no matter how hard you try. You are correct that the article will not be deleted for being an orphan; if it is deleted it will be for lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia's notability requirements. I noticed you have a second reference at the article from a Reliable Source, namely the Wall Street Journal Online, but the article doesn't even mention BuySellAds that I could find, so it doesn't help you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Technology Solutions

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

This has been previously deleted twice as promotional, & it barely escapes deletion as no indication of notability. I think the actual situation is more close to "insufficient notability," and perhaps deleting it here might be more definitive. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nothing in gnews [15]. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another tech business: a regional telecommunications and IT firm. They sponsor a softball team. Unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage by independent reliable sources. The author has made a valiant effort to provide footnotes and references, but none is to a Reliable Source. Google News Archive finds literally nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as a disambiguation page; User:Cnilep has taken care of doing that. Mandsford 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knaggs

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

No significant secondary source coverage established in article, and no apparent significant mention in any other sources. Seems to fail WP:GNG.

Comment The article survived a previous call for deletion some 6.5 years ago. Certainly it doesn't pass WP:RS. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to dab page Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This was discussed for deletion back in 2004 - and passed. Jeff Knaggs (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More accurately, it was closed as "no consensus". Consensus can change over 6 years. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but convert to a {{Surname}} DAB, as suggested by Mjroots. Cnilep (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knaggs (2nd nomination) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I closed that discussion page and left a link to here, luckily there were no comments on that page anyway. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but convert into a DAB page as suggested by Mjroots. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have converted the page to a DAB. That appears to be the drift of this discussion, but of course I am biased, having recommended such action myself. Cnilep (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Period (song)

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

Non-notable song. No secondary source coverage established. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I WP:A9 tagged. CTJF83 21:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have declined the A9 speedy, because the artist Fullmetal Alchemist has an article; but I haven't found the independent comment about the song that would be needed to satisfy WP:NSONGS. JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: I have been advised that Fullmetal Alchemist is a manga, and I find that the music composer for Fullmetal Alchemist:Brotherhood is Akira Senju, who doesn't have an article; so A9 it is. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Spitzer

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

Seemingly has plenty of sources until you realise that most of them are to his website or that of his company. Other mentions are incidental, not of the depth of coverage we require for this subject to meet WP:BIO Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do see several things sourced to the subject's website including a reprint from the Pioneer Press which is part of Sun Times Media Group (and evidently has other things to attend to than their archives which don't exist). But there is also mention in Forbes and CBS News which satisfies notability. John R. Polito, editor of the same website, would be a much better candidate for deletion. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a recognized expert in the field of smoking cessation. Article needs the addition of third-party sourcing but seems correctable through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I would like to see more content in the article from medical experts, I think this guy is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and massively depuff and remove most of the SPS claims. Collect (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Day

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

Greetings all! Although this article has been with us since 2005, I had great difficulty finding sources that would verify that this is indeed a recognized 'day'. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it ever was recognized. The lone source in the article makes no mention of a special day, and by the time it had been 150 years to the day since Origin of the Species was published, in 2009, the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth had already been observed. While I don't think any of the editors made it up, I think that it got taken off of a website where someone else made it up. Mandsford 16:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the link at some point turned into a redirect that wasn't quite working; I will fix it in a min; it should now be [16] -- Limulus (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am being sincere when I say that I appreciate that you've located an example of its use. Still, it appears to me at most to be a suggestion from the Suffolk Humanists that November 24 ought to be recognized as "evolution day". Another interpretation is that this was just the title to a blog entry. Mandsford 13:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A German magazine mentioned it, but in 2011, so that's not really definitive proof that it's real-but-obscure versus wikiality... But I have found evidence that the term was in use in 2004 here besides my vague recollection of having seen it that far back. I will continue to look for instances of use. -- Limulus (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Google News, "Evolution Day" mentioned in this 2010 Italian article: [17], "God and Darwinian Evolution Day Conference" from Nov. 2009 mentioned on [18], end of October 2008 article "Mendocino Beacon: MHS shows Homecoming spirit" which only has a summary available in Google News, but which reads: "The senior class won on Tuesday for Evolution Day when students dressed in different stages from amoebas to monkeys" -- Limulus (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal evidence: somewhat awkward use in real life: [19] ;) -- Limulus (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting; I found that if you do a Google search for "happy evolution day" (esp. WITH the quotes; it gives "About 1,400 results") you find a fair number or mentions including this one from 2006 which does not source Wikipedia: "According to my Geek Holidays calendar, today is the anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859." That would explain why the mention in the 2004 "thehumorlist" message I linked previously begins "Today is the 329th day of the year, with only 37 days remaining in 2004." I will have to see if I can find a mention of a calendar of "Geek Holidays" online with Evolution Day from 2005 or before; that should establish WP:VNT -- Limulus (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page mentioning the Geek Holidays apparently got them from a Google feed as per [20]. Unfortunately, the calendar that someone set up on Google doesn't have any entries prior to 2006, so that's a dead end. -- Limulus (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; FreakingNews had an Evolution Day contest and they nicely defined the term on the page without linking to Wikipedia... for now that should be sufficient to justify a stub article. -- Limulus (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the above links I found; while uncommon, the term for the OoS anniversary was in use going back to at least 2004 and is still in use. -- Limulus (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no reliable sources that suggest this is a recognized "day" - the reference doesn't mention it. There's a couple of GHits referring to the Darwin anniversary as "Evolution day", but they don't suggest there's anything official. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I could find is this [21], which appears to be a self published blog. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Found this: [22], which may put things on the keep side of things. EDIT: Oh dear, the link triggered a spam filter; remove the asterisks in the URL. Stickee (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just talking about the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species - it doesn't say anything about there being an annual "day" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Astronomy

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

This just seems like a fancy advertisment for one particular online course at a university in Australia, so it's not a notable university degree as the title (mis)leads the reader to believe. Asav (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator states it perfectly. This is not about a master's degree that astronomers would commonly have in their resume (I think that's usually called an "M.S."), and it's an ad for James Cook U. Might be worth a mention in that article, but no redirect. Mandsford 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lot of universities offer a Master's Program in Astronomy. Usually as an MSc/MS. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (Pricer1980). Redirect created. Prolog (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud atlas (film)

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

Too soon for an article: per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and according to IMDb this is "Expected to shoot this summer." Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cloud Atlas (novel)#Film adaptation (though I would move this article to Cloud Atlas (film) if it is to be reused in the future). The guidelines say to create a film article when filming begins, and it is too soon right now. I'd rather not userfy; we can add pertinent detail to that "Film adaptation" section. There does not appear to be that much coverage besides the who's who for the cast and crew to warrant an incubated article. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An entry in imdb.com is apparently where this comes from. I suppose a redirect would be okay. Mandsford 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Cloud Atlas (novel)#Film adaptation. Though the current article is unsourced, the film adaptation IS being discussed in sources,[23] [24] and the article IS sourcable... just not enough quite yet to merit a seperate article as an allowable exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion now only means recreation in a short while. While the guideline cited by the nominator is reasonable in most cases, I believe this film is an exception. The film is already getting major coverage in the Hollywood press due to the weight of the big names involved, so the article is already sourceable. Obviously, in any case, the article needs to be renamed so that the second word is capitalized. —Lowellian (reply) 00:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, the exceptions to WP:NFF are quite few, and usually call for a far greater and longer persistance of coverage to even be considered. At the moment, as the article is slightly too soon, I am sure the request would be granted if you asked that the article be userfied to you at User:Lowellian/Cloud Atlas (film) for continued work as coverage grows. I would even be willing to have it placed in the incubator for the same reasons... just so long as someone is wiling to work on it while it waits in limbo. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never edited this article and have no personal investment in it. I don't want it userfied to my userspace, and if I did, I would just do the userfication myself; your suggestion that I need help doing userfication is unnecessary and rather condescending, as if I was a Wikipedia newbie. —Lowellian (reply) 16:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never edited it either, nor do I have any personal investment it it, so please do not feel patronized, as my response was made in good faith and without me tracking your edit history. I do agree that it is beginning to receive coverage and stated as much in my own original redirect comment. It's simply that I feel it does not yet merit an independent article, and per WP:NFF, information in the section at Cloud Atlas (novel)#Film adaptation is suitable for now. We can disagree on that point certainly, and yes I would expect the article to be back in a few months if/when filming begins, and so understand your concerns about why should we delete now if we're only going to recreate later... which why I included incubation as a viable option. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pravrajika Vrajaprana

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

Non-notable religious figure. Creation of the article is merely yet another example of User:TheMandarin's flagrant violation of WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the subject is notable for an article. Google books returns about "About 676 results", she had been a co-panelist with Dalai Lama, with several papers presented at conferences, contributor to University Press books. The biography is referenced by secondary sources published University of Notre Dame Press publication and Crown Publishing (and there are several more available on google books). "religious figure" is inaccurate and Vrajaprana is notable as a writer on Vedanta( for which there are "About 676 results" on google books ). Apart from these, bad-faith allegations of " User:TheMandarin's flagrant violation of WP:Advocacy" sounds more like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the efforts of yourself and other Ramakrishna Mission devotees such as User:Devadaru, Wikipedia is one of the most visible sites for the promotion of the Ramakrishna Mission and its authors. Wikipedia has 17 hits for the utterly non-notable Interpreting Ramakrishna, a book, which — apart from the fawning, flattering coverage in Wikipedia — has only been reviewed in Ramakrishna Mission literature by Ramakrishna Mission devotees (two of the hits go to my userpages, which contain a bibliography of every book and scholarly article on Ramakrishna from the last few decades, most of which are not sufficiently notable to have articles devoted to them). On Wikipedia, it appears to be a highly important work, which needs coverage in many, many articles. Your edits clearly violate WP:Advocacy. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote a religious organization. You're right — I don't like it when users abuse Wikipedia for their own private agendas. — goethean ॐ 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its easy to see who is abusing "Wikipedia for their own private agendas", Advocacy by adding failed verification, by bad-faith accusations, incivility, name-calling few examples : Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#User:Goethean , User_talk:Goethean/2009#Userpage, ANI thread on edit-warring and 3RR violation. Its really a co-incidence that scholars at American Academy of Religion hold a panel discussion on "utterly non-notable Interpreting Ramakrishna"[25][26]. So, on the premises of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and bad faith accusations on other editors, you want to get a notable article referenced by secondary sources deleted. Thank you. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've failed to explain why a book that has never been reviewed outside of Ramakrishna Mission literature gets broad attention on Wikipedia, all of it contributed by yourself. I suggest that it is due to your WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you think American Academy of Religion[27], Hinduism Today[28] are branches of Ramakrishna Mission? --TheMandarin (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The American Academy of Religion is of course highly notable. But as you undoubtedly know, the above PDF contains nothing which contradicts my claims. — goethean ॐ 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Its not a mere claim: You can find more info in Prof.Kusumita Pederson's article above. Dr.Pederson was present in the panel discussion. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an obvious keep for a religious leader. As a person, this individual is notable as a religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument looks like original research. Notabiliy is established by reliable external sources, not by what a person is "as a person". Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My arguments are not OR, please see Devadaru's comments below ~~as you seem to be ill-informed.~~ Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I might be ill-informed. However, I still can't see what you mean when you say "as a person". I can see your argument that she is notable according to Metawiki criteria. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article's Selected Papers section is highly dubious. It does not contain any published papers. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section's title should be corrected as Presented Papers, I thought it would be helpful to add papers presented at notable conferences like AAR.--TheMandarin (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had no idea it was Wikipedia practice to list presented unpublished papers. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think its sufficient to restrict to published presented papers. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. And I argue that even the fact that a published paper was presented somewhere is nonnotable and irrelevant, unless, of course, this is mentioned in the title of the paper. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but I gracefully disagree with you — not every published paper can be considered "nonnotable and irrelevant", for ex, when the publications are being cited by academics for ex here:http://www.jstor.org/pss/3270585 and also used as text books in universities like Emory University here. These things apart there are sources that cite her for the research on Christopher Isherwood, for ex in books like Mr.Isherwood changes trains by Victor Marsh. (BTW, there is no section on Presented papers now, which I think is unnecessary, But a section on publications is very helpful). --TheMandarin (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems we have a terminology issue here, and I might be at fault. I thought that a presented paper meant a paper that was given as a talk at a conference or the like. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        At the moment I fail to see where my argument was unclear, but let me re-phrase: (1) A paper that is unpublished and was presented (as a lecture) is per definition nonnotable (because it is unpublished); (2) A paper that is published could (obviously!) be notable, but the fact that it was also presented (as a lecture) is per se irrelevant, and is not per se an argument for its notability. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree with you and I am not trying to establish notability on paper presentations alone, and my point is there are enough secondary sources to establish notability. Along with secondary sources, she is cited in academic circles as indicated above, for ex: such as "Newsletter of the INSTITUT FÜR DIE WISSENSCHAFTEN VOM MENSCHEN, Vienna and of the INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCES at Boston University"[29]. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Anyway, the article in the newsletter is not a good argument for your views. It would appear to be reprinted from a confessional publication, the author is a journalist with a confessional commitment, and the references concern the value or meditation &c. The article's context is more confessional than academic. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The above link was just a example. A more relevant example academic citation would be International Journal of Yoga Therapy[30]. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has written or edited some notable books. Google Scholar returns sixty results. Her books have been used as text books, for instance here and here. The article is well-referenced. Devadaru (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Ramakrishna Mission devotee is heard from. Thanks for your help. — goethean ॐ 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your personal vendetta against editors that you stereotype as "Ramakrishna Mission devotees" is getting rather ridiculous. Please take this personal issue of yours elsewhere - there are many talk pages where you can vent your theories. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Steroeotype? Both User:Devadaru and User:TheMandarin have presented themselves as Ramakrishna Mission devotees (and presumably can defend themselves without the help of your personal attacks). User:Devadaru is so committed to promoting Tyagananda and Vrajaprana's new book that he personally sent me a free copy so that I could see for myself what a wonderful wonderful book it is. All I'm doing is pointing out that their edits flagrantly violate WP:Advocacy. — goethean ॐ 21:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then why are you trying to delete an entry on a notable religious leader/author? As far as this Afd is concerned - you have gone to far. This is a notable subject - and I still insist that you take your issues elsewhere. This is a notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Nominating an article for deletion is "going too far"? What are you talking about? — goethean ॐ 21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Your personal issues regarding other editors is no reason to nominate an article for AFD. Again, you need to take your personal issues with other editors to talk pages. Trying to delete articles, because you have issues with other editors, is not constructive - especially when the article is about a notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I nominated this article for deletion because the subject is not notable. You are right --- User:TheMandarin's continued flagrant violation of WP:Advocacy should be dealt with elsewhere. — goethean ॐ 23:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, please take you personal fights against other editors to the proper discussion pages. This article is clearly notable, sourced, etc... You need to take your personal issues elsewhere - as there are appropriate discussion boards for such issues that you have. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The user goethean nominated the article for deletion on the grounds that it is (according to him) nonnotable. He has every right do so, because the purpose is to debate the question according to Metawiki procedures. It is unfair and unconstructive to criticize him for nominating the article. Let us instead please discuss the subject matter. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        While User:Goethean has every right to nominate the article for deletion, his personal attacks, bad faith allegaions are clearly unjustified. Goethean can take his personal issues to appropriate noticeboard or even WP:ARBCOM, where they look into content disputes, incivility etc., from the past few years. Attacking the editors instead of the content is just Ad Hominem and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first three of the four results in a Google news search seem notable. All require payment to read the articles, so I can't see but the summaries.

San Jose Mercury News : DALAI LAMA PROMOTES HARMONY

$2.95 - San Jose Mercury News - NewsBank - Apr 16, 2006

This is the attitude we should strive for, said Pravrajika Vrajaprana, a nun with the Vedanta :Society of Southern California. They are not a Hindu, ...

She is quoted by a major newspaper which considers her an authority on this subject. Dream Focus 04:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, leaning towards keep I am beginning to think that her publications are notable enough. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mabo Day

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

no indication of WP:Notability in tts own right. The majority of the article has been copied from Eddie Mabo with the exception of the unsourced first sentence. The Eddie Mabo article has had a cited reference to Mabo day added and this article was redirected to that article but the original creator has objected to that. noq (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at the zealousness with which Noq has acted on this article, nominating it for deletion and redirecting it within 45 minutes of my creating it! I basically created it as a stub, adding some content copied from another article as a basis for further editing. Noq claimed that there was 'nothing here to indicate Mabo day exists', although a simple Google search would have revealed its significance. The Mabo decision of the Australian High Court in 1992 was hugely significant in Australian history and law, leading to the Native Title Act 1993 and the establishment of the National Native Title Tribunal. There is also a whole section of the Australian National Film and Sound Archive devoted to Mabo (see here). As for WP:Notability, this a contentious issue that has arisen often before. One person's notability is another person's trivia. I notice, for instance, that Noq (whose early editing history reveals a strong interest in sporting articles) created an article on Greg Sammons (a Leicester Tigers senior squad player) on 11 October 2008. This six-sentence article continues to exist as a stub (see the history). And yet Noq is concerned to delete an article on Mabo Day only 45 minutes after it was created! What worries me here is not so much the article as the over-zealous actions of (anonymous) self-appointed Wikipedia editors. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please read WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks. This discussion is only about whether "Mabo Day" has sufficient independent notability for a stand-alone article. Attacks on the motives of other editors, and criticism of other articles, have no place in it. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, I am familiar with those articles, and my comments were more of an observation on a systemic issue in Wikipedia, rather than a personal attack on Noq. I apologise if they were taken as such. I have encountered the systemic issue before. What bothers me is the inconsistency in the application of Wikipedia guidelines. I wish that the same courtesy embodied in articles like WP:Assume good faith would be applied to creators of new articles, rather than nominating the article for deletion within 45 minutes of its creation! I have already made some substantial comments on the article's notability, and I will improve it in the coming days. Like most people, I have other things to do, and editing Wikipedia articles sometimes has to take second place. But that is what a wiki is all about, isn't it? Simon Kidd (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You still go on about the notability about Mabo without establishing the separate notability of Mabo Day. the article you created minus the copy from the Eddie Mabo article amounted to a statement that Mabo day existed without any sources. I nominated it for prod as such. Another editor provided a reference that the day actually existed - something you failed to do. I added the existence of Mabo day to the main Mabo article with the reference the other editor provided in his/her edit summary. As nothing else was in the Mabo day article other than that which you had copied from the Eddi Mabo article I redirected the Mabo Day article to the main article about Mabo. You then accused me of deleting the article but have done nothing to address the issues raised other than undo the redirect when told how to do it. As it stands I believe a redirect to the main article to be the correct thing at this stage - if more becomes available then about the Day itself and not Mabo then a separate article may be appropriate. As for my past editing history,people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. noq (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My initial feeling was that there wasn't enough support from the article sources for the statement that, on June 3, it is a bank holiday in the Torres Strait Islands, but I see that from other sources [31] as well as a campaign to make this a holiday recognized elsewhere. Unlike a lot of the "---- Day" articles that get submitted, observance as an actual legal holiday would qualify it as notable. Mandsford 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every indication of notability; try searching Google News Archives. The merge/split decision is a legitimate issue, but not an issue for AfD. Melchoir (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford and Melchoir Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, all indications that this is a day observed as a public holiday in a recognised region in Australia. I believe this should make it notable. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources in the google news archive search which clearly indicate significant coverage in reliable sources, which in turn show the subject is notable. Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because This guy Noq has a hobby of deleting articles LOL, And sources in the google news archive search which clearly indicate significant coverage in reliable sources . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majedinho (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African American Policy Forum

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

notability and primary source tagged for two years, doesn't meet notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stacks of sources in Google Books: [32]. Strong presence on university websites: [33]. Notable. --JN 466 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the article and added 7 sources. More content can probably be sourced from university websites. --JN 466 20:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a substantial organization, judging from Google Scholar hits. Article is a weak stub in need of great improvement, obviously. Carrite (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even in the absence of the additional sources provided by JN466, it seems clear that the subject is notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete as out of project scope. Closing as "merge" would not be helpful given that the page has had a "mergeto" tag since 2007 and no merger has occurred. But the page can be userfied onm request for merge or transwiki if somebody really, actually wants to do that. Sandstein 06:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces of the Federated Suns

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

Hy there, I'm hereby proposing the article Armed Forces of the Federated Suns for deletion. I guess that this is the 3rd deletion proposal (I might be mistaken however). The first proposal seems to have ended in a "merge and then delete" result but this was not carried out. I personally made a speedy delete proposal (at the time I had not noticed the first proposal) but another user believes that "merge and turn into a redirect" is a better solution.

The subject itself is IMHO simply not notable enough to warrant an article for itself. It's a rather too detailed description of a fictional military of a fictional nation in a fictional universe. In the end we have to ask ourselves: is the subject interesting/worthy to require an article? IMHO it simply isn't but notice that this is only my personal opinion upon this matter. Another thing: if the verdict of this discussion is yet another merge then by all means: MAKE SURE that the work gets done this time. I'm not going to do it. I don't know how to do it in the 1st place (make a merge and preserving the history) and I honestly believe that the information of this article is way too specialized (not worthy enough). Thanks for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created in 2005, 'nuff said. Wikipedia is gradually getting away from being the encyclopedia of fantasy worlds as entertainment wikis take over. I think that most of the BattleTech articles can migrate at FTL speed to their own universe (in this case the BattleTech wiki), though some of the core articles have their own real world notability. Mandsford 16:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you mean Transwiki, then? Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I've always understood transwiki to refer to moving something to another location within the service; in this case, something one reaches from the Wikipedia main page-- Wikinews, Wiktionary, or one of those other things nobody ever looks at. The entertainment wikis on wikia.com are advertiser-supported and exist separately. More importantly, the entire article can be hosted over there without someone trying to cut it way down so that it can be merged somewhere and, someone can link it from one of the remaining Battletech articles. Mandsford 13:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikis to Wikia are logged at WP:TRANSWIKI, so I think your understanding is more restrictive than actual practice. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --JN 466 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my opinion, fictional universe descriptions such as this have little place in a serious encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per WP:FICT, WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and WP:ATD. It can certainly be trimmed in the merge, but there's simply no reason given to delete it. The nominator has failed to lift a finger to fix anything, even given a previous consensus to merge, which I do not find in an AfD under this title. If there's a previous consensus to merge, and the nominator is asking for a merge, why are we even here at AfD in the first place? Apparently to allow people to spout off non-policy based WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator hasn't written anything that even suggests that he or she is asking for a merge. Mandsford 13:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obliged to improve an article about a subject which I believe shouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. The history of the article (and its talkpage) indicate that there is a consensus to merge the article into Federated Suns. However it was never carried out for unclear reasons (laziness , disinterest, or "no one was willing to take the proper steps"?). In my personal opinion this article shouldn't be merged; it should be deleted but I hope that if the result is another 'merge' the work gets done this time. I gave my reasons for deletion above ("simply not notable enough to warrant an article for itself. It's a rather too detailed description of a fictional military of a fictional nation in a fictional universe") and I can only wonder how you failed to notice them. Notice that these are perfectly valid reasons (WP:Notability and WP:NOTMANUAL) and that you're certainly free to have a different opinion upon this matter. Flamarande (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a volunteer project, so you're not obligated to do anything. The proper and polite thing to do is to go ahead and implement the consensus to merge--but the project tolerates those who would rather write tons of deletion rationales than actually lift a finger to help. In my personal opinion, that should not be tolerated. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also tolerates those who would prefer tell other people "so fix it" rather than to fix anything themselves, although you may have started merging information from this page to another article. Please feel free to continue. Mandsford 16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'Nuff Said.Ukguy4thewin (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge As a fan of Battletech, information gleamed here is intesting. At the same time, it is more detailed than it ought to be. Perhaps the BattletechWiki would be a better place --Rockstonetalk to me! 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fredsimpson does not make an argument in terms of Wikipedia guidelines, and there is otherwise a (narrow) consensus that sourcing is insufficient for notability. Sandstein 06:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fillyacup prop

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

This article has been recreated several times (as Fillyacup Prop - different capitalization), with completely different contents, by two(?) editors, and has been deleted each time - and I've had a protest at my Talk page. This time I'd like to get a bit more input so there will be a firm community decision. As far as I can see, "fillyacup" is just a username of someone at that Siccness forum (which itself does not seem notable), and I can't find any evidence of a notable "fictional character", so at best I think its non-notable person. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They had an article about this show in a recent article of the source magazine. Apparently it started on an online forum and got picked up by BET and ran for two seasons. The show was called Siccness Network, and it started Fillyacup, 0r0, a couple of australians and a quirky Canadian. It grew quite notable and apparently on the westcoast some people started using the term fillyacup as a way of saying thanks (apparently he was rather thankful for everything). It says here in this article however that it only played in a few select cities in California, which is maybe why its hard to find information about.

Comment I wouldn't say that source article was recent 2008. Also, it has inaccuracies. I lived in Los Angeles when this was playing on air, and they don't list that as one of the cities this show was played in. I watched it weekly.

Do you have any reliable sources to support its notability? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May issue of Source in 2008. I cannot find an online copy of it but I am looking at it right now in front of me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.11.80 (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember this show from years ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.50.219.243 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can remember lots of things from years ago too, but that doesn't get them into Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~If this is a character from a notable show, what's the name of the show?~~ For the character to be notable, the show itself must be notable - so are there any sources for the show out there? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment haha the fillyacup prop..i remember that from a TV show....always running around proppin people...dude was one happy mofo...thats been years since I've seen it. i heard a rumor that comedy central might start airing the re-runs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.93.166 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, and none to be had. --JN 466 19:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable and independent sources have been shown to have significant coverage of this fictional character. IPs who have not edited before asserting that they remember it do not satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source Magazine, May 2008 Issue #221, Page 117 (http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/295/scan00051.jpg). Also, Vibe Magazine, June 2008, Page 55. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanbrown (talk • contribs) 03:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests, if anything, that the show wasn't very notable - it says it only aired for a short period in a few cities. If any notability for the show could be shown, I'd say an article for the show is the only thing we could support - not an article for a character from the show. (But as I say, I think even that's doubtful). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions that many famous hiphop artists (Yak Ballz, Yukmouth, Brotha Lynch Hung) were regularly on the show, to me that makes the show notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanbrown (talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's something positive. But that's about the show, not the character, so at best it might support a Sicness Network article - but notability still requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (sources - plural). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you just say for fillyacup to be notable they needed to show an independent source that the show is notable, once they showed this you say it's not enough. hmmmm.--Fredsimpson (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was to suggest that notability of the show is indeed required - but not that that alone is sufficient. Basically, for an article about the show we'd need multiple independent sources covering the show in a non-trivial way, and for an article about the character we'd also need sources covering the character. At the moment we only have one source covering the show, and I don't think that's really sufficient - and I really don't think it's anything like enough for an article about the character. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe he is notable, the article is about the character more then the show which shows Fillyacup's notoriety. Additionally, if you walk around Oakland today, you'll see the character on home-made t-shirts. The character also was featured on other notable television shows, the article mentions the tv show Home Movies. Monkeymanbrown (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hopefully I'm doing this right, anyways I just found this site from Google. I used to watch this show religiously. I have been looking all over the internet for information about it, and was super excited to find it one wikipedia. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not delete it, my heart will be broken. SiccnessNetworkFan (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any thoughts on how the required notability has been demonstrated? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source Magazine is pretty reputable and is definitely an independent source adding credibility to this page. Is there anyway you can upload the Vibe article you spoke of? Would add to your case. Ukguy4thewin (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But change name, the characters name is simply Fillyacup, he was a prop. Also, he was voiced by the Numskull of the Luniz.^{[citation needed]} Good on you for making this page! I do miss the show, does anyone know whether or not Comedy Central is still interested in picking it up?--Fredsimpson (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any thoughts on how the required notability has been demonstrated? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one source which more or less points out that it isn't notable. Can't get much worse. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-notability. -- anndelion (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Kourbatly

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

Player that fails WP:V due to a lack of sources indicating whether he has actually played for Al-Wahda. Searched arabic name as well as other spellings of his latin name (eg. Tareq Kharbotli) J Mo 101 (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 19:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and no sources are available to prove he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - I don't understand why you want to delete this page, it's about a professional footballer in the Syrian football league. He is well-known at least in his country. --Salah Almhamdi (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provide reliable sources that confirm he is notable and the article will be kept. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL unless sources can be provided. Zanoni (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverified. Assuming the content of the article is accurate, he would meet WP:NSPORT, but without source to confirm any of it, we cannot make that assumption. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of autonomous territories

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

Messy duplicate of List of autonomous areas by country Sandman888 (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 19:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The alternative article mentioned above is better organized and includes definitions of different levels of autonomy. Seki1949 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork of List of autonomous areas by country, per nom. Carrite (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When one article has existed since 2004 and the other since 2007, I find it hard to call either one a content fork. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inferior near-duplicate of List of autonomous areas by country, per nom.--JayJasper (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a duplicate but complementary to the other article in content and organization. Not a content fork under any reasonable construct of rationales for content forks. Sharing information where each presents the information in an entirely different manner does not a "content fork" make. Notable material, hence Keep. Collect (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it's not a duplicate, and after looking at List of autonomous areas by country and comparing the two, I'd say this one is better organized. It has the benefit of being a sortable table, so that one may organize it by country or by name of area. The latter has a good deal of information, but it's the Wikipedia equivalent of the messy office with papers strewn all about. Mandsford 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sadler

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

Football coach who has only ever been assistant manager or youth team manager / coach. References provided are all passing mentions in sports coverage of a general nature, with the exception of the Gateshead one which is from his own club and akin to a player profile. Did play football but only at youth level, failing WP:NFOOTY. ClubOranje^T 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 09:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 09:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assistant coaches at lower league football teams are not notable. MLA (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article is not bad in most respects. The subject gets enough press coverage for verifiability but the youth team career and the coaching do not quite add up to enough notability although coverage like this from the BBC brings it quite close, hence the weakness of my delete !vote. If he were to become more notable in future (e.g. by becoming a team manager) then this article would be worth resurrecting and expanding. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - doesn't quite meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is out of date because Sadler became a first team coach in August. As a result, he regularly does interviews for local papers like this, which could be considered WP:ROUTINE I'm sure. I am undecided because there is no established guideline for coaches who don't pass WP:NFOOTBALL, which is something I would like to see addressed. Rui Faria is deemed notable because of shenanigans in a European match, scraping the barrel of WP:GNG, but in all honesty there isn't much between them. Sadler coaches a group of fully professional players in a fully professional league. No different from René Meulensteen and Tony Strudwick, to name two. If he is not notable then so be it. I would just like to see the grey area removed and consistency implemented. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is always sad when people put good efforts in to making an article which then fails due to an intrinsic problem with the subject, rather than any deficiency in their efforts. If clearer guidelines could help avoid this happening then that can only be a good thing. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTBALL clearly states the criteria - managers that have managed at international senior level or managed a team in a fully professional league - anything outside this requires GNG that shows the subject to be notable, (ie, not just "routine sports coverage of a general nature". A coach is just another body doing a job without the fame of the lime-lighters, same as groundsmen, physios, masseurs, agents...I don't see how it can get clearer without shutting the GNG door completely and saying simply you must meet this hard'n'fast criteria of "having managed at level X". One simply needs to look at the subject and ask; "has he achieved anything particularly notable in the scheme of things"--ClubOranje^T 07:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syme (Nineteen Eighty-Four)

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

I believe this article violates WP:BKD. Compare searches of 'syme 1984' with winston, julia, o'brien, etc. Syme is way behind them. He's only appeared three times (at lunch, when he vapourised, and O'Brien's mention) in the novel and is not a major character. The analysis in the article, the only thing which can prove its subject's notability, is unreferenced and may be a borderline case of WP:POV. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Adequately covered at Nineteen Eighty-Four#Secondary characters. MLA (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Doggone it, I liked Syme, the loyal Oceanian government employee who talked just a little bit too much, but he truly was a minor character in the novel. Only a weak delete, simply because articles about things like books, mathematics, and events that happened in years that don't begin with "2" are in short supply around here, while those about athletes and people running for office are fiercely defended. We do have to resist the trend to dumb down Wikipedia back to its more illiterate days. Mandsford 16:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and leave as redirect --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per RAN. I note that of the listed Secondary Characters in that article, he's the only one with his name bluelinked. This should be pretty straightforward--I don't see any reason this needs to run the full 7 days unless someone objects to such a merge. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per RAN and Jclemens. Notable enough in the novel to have at least some of this content merged into the Secondary characters section (without causing undue weight) but not enough for his own article. MeekSaffron (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GTechWorld

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

Per original CSD nominator meets Speedy delete A7 and G11. I removed the blatant advertising but there isn't even a claim for notability.

Speedy delete tag removed by IP editor, who may or may not be the same user that created page, but presuming good faith I'm just starting this AFD Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily. Advertisement. No claim of notability. MLA (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about whether the society is notable enough. If one discounts some "keep" arguments that do not make reference to our applicable criteria, one might see a "delete" consensus, but I'm applying "when in doubt, don't delete" in this case. Sandstein 06:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Chronicle Society

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

Following suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, I'm nominating this article separately. Article was written by Doric Loon (talk · contribs), the president/leading member of the "Medieval Chronicle Society" (see discussion on other AfD and at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_the_Medieval_Chronicle). Seems to be promotional, and can't find any evidence of notability, even taking into account our current low threshold. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current version of that is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle.--Doric Loon (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this, but unfortunately, I have to be objective. Delete. THis is not a notable organization at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. With all due respect, I disagree on the "not notable" nature of the Medieval Chronicle Society. How can a scientific society with members from all around the world be "not notable"? How can a society that has organized five international conferences be "not notable"? Several volumes of the "Medieval Chronicle" (a very notable journal on medieval history and history-writing) have been edited under the auspices of the Medieval Chronicle Society. Is that still "not notable"? How about the massive "Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle", which contains contributions by members of the Medieval Chronicle Society? I am terribly sorry but I do not think that fits the description of a "not notable" organization. Wikipedia has entries on almost any minor, lower-league football club around this world (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Olt_Scorniceşti or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bury_Town_F.C.), but an important scientific organization is put on the chopping block? I kindly ask you to reconsider. Euro

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too. And this is a genuinely academic group. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform and educate, so we've traditionally been rather tolerant of genuinely academic things. I wonder whether this might be one of the rare cases when our notability guidelines could be set aside. I also note that the Medieval Chronicle might be a notable journal in its own right (see WP:SJ).
Even if there's no consensus to ignore the rules in this case, I'm still opposed to deletion on the grounds that none of the nominator's remarks require it. A conflict of interest, or promotional content, aren't reasons to delete. They're reasons to rewrite. A lack of notability isn't a reason to delete either. It's a reason to redirect (in this case, to the List of historical societies).—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not something that's notable even among medieval historians. Certainly don't see why we should set aside our notability policy to accommodate some self-promotion. PS, the slowness of these two deletion requests is quite appalling; in hindsight it'd probably have been better if I'd deleted myself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Appalling"? Have I missed some reason why there's a terrible rush?—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just tediously long drawn out for such a clear cut case; some of us have better things to do than watch these cases for weeks on end. Back in the day AfD was better than this ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it's very drawn out and that both the speed and quality of commentary at AfD has declined noticeably since I started editing. I don't think using CSD to replace AfD is a terribly good answer, though.—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deacon of Pndapetzim, it seems to me that you are leading a (very) personal crusade against this society--and I really don't understand why. Several users on this page have noted that the Medieval Society is in fact a well-known society (you might not be familiar with it, but that is an entirely different business). By the way, the Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle is cited as the authoritative work on the subject in Albrecht Classen's Handbook of Medieval Studies (p. 1720); the Chronicle Society is noted on the previous page. Personal crusades are not at all in the spirit of Wikipedia, and that is why I reiterate my support for keeping this article. You say that this case is clear cut, yet the only things that seem clear cut are that a) you ignore the importance of the Medieval Chronicle Society (as a doctoral student in medieval history, cf. your wiki profile, you should be happy that such a society exists); 2) you are taking this issue far too personally. --Euro (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your own 'vote' for a keep will almost certainly be ignored, as will any personal remarks you choose to make against contributors here; this will apply to other involved anons, so this is a giant waste of your time. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC) [For the record the above anon is another contributor to the Encyclopedia connected to the society]Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim, this is becoming a bit ridiculous. You have still not argued (argued, not just stated) convincingly why the EMC and the MCS are "not notable" in your opinion. Major experts in history and historiography such as Peter Ainsworth, Godfried Croenen, Sverre Bagge, John Friedman, Eva Haverkamp, Edward Donald Kennedy, Richard Burgess, F.H.M. Le Saux, Peter Damian-Grint, Estelle Doudet, and many others are part of the MCS and have contributed to the EMC, and yet you keep claiming that the MCS/EMC are "not notable"?!? As most readers have probably realized by now, this has become your personal battle--and this is not what Wikipedia is about. Enough is enough. --Euro (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[34]You seem to be wounded by these nominations, but don't take this as an offense to your book. "Not notable" here means that it doesn't comply with Wikipedia inclusion thresholds, outlined at WP:NOTABILITY. It simply hasn't gotten the third party reliable source coverage necessary to merit inclusion as an encyclopedia article here. It doesn't mean that the work isn't notable in the real world sense you'll be more familiar with, nor does it mean your book isn't worthy of respect (by contrast, all Ann Coulter's book are "notable" in the Wikipedia sense even if they aren't worthy in the real world sense). Ask Doric Loon to explain it to you. Your book looks like a wonderful resource. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, Wikipedia should keep the article "Ann Coulter" and delete the "Medieval Chronicle Society"? Hmmm. "Convincing" as ever... --Euro (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a specialist society it is of course not widely talked about, and Medieval Studies tend to be online less than many fields. Nevertheless, it has 12 hits in Google Scholar, one of which leads to several references in the Handbook of Medieval Studies which I consider enough to establish its notability (multiple references in reliable secondary sources). I have added another reference to the article. Finally, on the question of conflicts of interest, I think we should welcome experts to write on the subject they know best, so long as the information they add is accurate. Francis Bond (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those represent Wikipedia content printed by a third party for commercial profit; one briefly mentions the society alongside other minor organizations such as the "Harting Committee of the Dutch Universities for Dutch Students of English"; the rest are for a journal supposedly related to the society. These may or may not prove the the "Proceedings" are notable (marginal at best); but not the society. Yes, we welcome experts who wish to use Wikipedia to contribute material, not simply to append their own works as 'references' for promotional purposes. If any 'expert' wishes to contribute material, they are as free to whether or not we allow Wikipedia to be used as their advertising site. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is really time to wind this thing up. The vote would appear to be four “keeps” (S Marshall, Francis Bond, Euro, and me) and two “deletes” (Deacon of Pndapetzim and, ambivalently, Dennis the Tiger). Of course this is not just a vote, and it comes down to quality of argument, which an admin has to decide. Here of course, Deacon of Pndapetzim cannot act as an admin, as he has argued in a partisan fashion and you cannot be both a litigant and a judge in the same dispute. I have asked other admins to look at this and bring us to a conclusion.

I don’t want to drag this out, but there are two things I need to comment on. First, the CoI issue, since it hasn’t been explained on this page. I started this article, although as a member of the society (at that time I held no office in it) I had a potential conflict of interests. Likewise the article on the encyclopedia, in which I led the team, though most of the writing in that work is not by me. I checked the rules, which say that in these cases CoI does not debar me from creating the articles provided I am up-front about the CoI and neutral in my editing. I clearly met the former criterion and did my best on the latter, though it’s for others to say if I succeeded. At any rate, if there is bias in this article, you are welcome to fix it: I am not going to insist on content which anyone has a problem with. That SHOULD make the CoI aspect history.

The other thing that I have to comment on here is that I am deeply troubled by the treatment of unregistered users on this page (and that by an admin!). Unregistered users are important to Wikipedia. It is NOT our policy to “ignore” them, let alone patronise them or be rude to them. And disparaging a user for being an “anon” when he has signed with his real name (as Euro did before he was badgered into getting a username) and therefore is more easily identifiable than most of the regular users here... well, all I can say is that that is a curious form of anonymity. Please let’s have no more of that, it is not worthy of the level of discourse we seek in Wikipedia.--Doric Loon (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that the article makes no assertion as to Notability that is backed up by Reliable Sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; doesn't appear notable. bobrayner (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything, either in the article or this AFD, that suggests this passes WP:ORG, WP:N, or WP:V. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , and merge the article on the encyclopedia into it. It would have been preferable not to start two articles. But the conferences are notable, and the encyclopedia is being published by the best known publisher in the world for this sort of topic, which adds to the notability. . There is a good 3rd party source, [35]. which lists the encyclopedia as one of the key sources in the field. The article should be here tho, as it can include other things the society does besides the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to draw attention again to my remark above, when I said "A lack of notability isn't a reason to delete either. It's a reason to redirect (in this case, to the List of historical societies)." I hope the closer will read the "delete" recommendations above in this light.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (and merge in the encyclopedia info here) per DGG's rationale: I'm not as sure as xe is about the notability of the conferences but on balance I lead to keeping, since it does seem to a marginally notable organization. As a second choice, merge/redirect to List of historical societies per S Marshall.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to verify the extent to which this Society even exists as a scholarly Society, rather than simply a term for branding the activities of User:Doric Loon and some colleagues. In modern academia there is a plethora of semi-fictional incorporeal 'entities' which brand groups of scholarly activity. Individual postgraduates often come up with such brandings and perform activities under them for periods of time. We know its president is very keen and active giving the brand superficial notability on the internet (and is asking us to stretch our notability criteria to accommodate his babies); what troubles me about keeping the Society article is that I have found third party evidence of this society's institutional existence and established notability elusive. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of P continues to willfully ignore the fact that this scholarly society has members from all around the world, that it has organized five international conferences (the next one is in July, in Pecs, Hungary), that several volumes of the "Medieval Chronicle" (a very notable journal on medieval history and history-writing) have been edited under the auspices of the Medieval Chronicle Society, and finally, that the Encyclopedia is one of the products of the MCS. So, no, it is not difficult to verify the extent to which this society exists as a scholarly society. What is truly "incorporeal" is, I'm afraid, the argument for the alleged "lack of notability".--Euro (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wikipedia notability is defined in terms of citations, and the society is not the kind of organization which gets written about in the newspapers, so there is a point there that can be debated. But the idea that there is no society is just silly, and DoP can't possibly believe that himself. Which rather raises the question of what is HIS CoI. Euro and I have been very frank about where we stand (to the point of revealing our real-life identities, which means we have more to lose than the reputation of our wiki-personae if we are dishonest here). Everyone else who has written here has been short and factual. But DoP has made more comments than everyone else put together, he gives the tone of crusading, he has used rudeness, personal comments and sarcasm, he has taken a bullying tone to newbies, he has jumped opportunistically from one tactic to another as though he cares less about the argument than about winning the war - so what is his agenda? Some grudge? Nobody who contributes in this tone is just an honest seeker after truth!

This society has existed formally for 12 years, has 380 members, has organized 6 conferences with between 100-300 participants, has a website financed by the university of Liverpool, has a peer-reviewed journal with - what? - seven volumes of around 350 pages, has produced an 1800-page encyclopedia written by 450 scholars which DoP himself described as "a wonderful resource", and has among its members some of the biggest names in medieval literary studies world-wide, a few of whom have been named here already. That makes it a medium-sized learned society. All of that is easily verifiable. I really don't mind whether the community here decides that that is notable enough for Wikipedia; I have nothing to gain from including the article. I made the article available in good faith but won't be offended if the community decides we can't keep it. Our notability rules are problematic here, because a society like this is really only verifiable from its own literature, and I recognize that difficulty and have certainly NOT asked for the rules to be stretched. But I do resent the kind of news-of-the-world distortions which are coming from this user. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't there some appropriate banner to add, to the effect that the article as it is now is based on the society's own material? If yes, just apply it. Bazuz (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Bazuz (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the third-party significant coverage that means this meets the notability criteria. Most google scholar hits are either from the conference reports of the society or tiny mentions that the society was formed, with no other mentions. If this remains, we will see a proliferation of other barely notable medievalist societies (i.e. Haskins Society, etc.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Factor (programming language). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Svyatoslav Pestov

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

Prod was contested with no reason given. No outside reliable and verifiable sources given to establish notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

Oppose deletion. While the page indeed contains no outside sources, the related pages on Factor (programming language) and jEdit seem to contain few of them. GreyHood ^Talk 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, identify them, add the info in, and cite them. But remember that sources written by the author or that discuss his work but not him don't help. Understand I've got no issue with this article's existence, it just has to be correctly sourced to prove it's notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Factor (programming language), the subject's current active project. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I further note that Factor's notability is not directly relevant here; that would be a matter for another AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:BIO in any form, his only claim to ~~fame~~ notability is creating the Factor programming language and one of the dozens of free text editing software. Given Factor (programming language) is essentially based on primary sources, I doubt that it passes the notability guidelines as well, thus there is nothing to keep about Mr. Pestov.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Factor without prejudice to recreation. Note that new material has been added to the Svyatoslav Pestov article. Author satisfies both the definition of notability in WP:BIO, "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'"; and WP:AUTHOR point 2, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Unscintillating (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I note you added a bunch of references, these seem to consist of

A bunch from his own website
Articles that only mention him in passing as having created the language (as in just one sentence).
A link to download his program, which from what I can tell has no information on him at all.
A video of lecture he gave, which, while better than the others, certainly does not count as strong independent coverage.

--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oppose merge per the lack of reliable sources. The sources added by Unscintillating (talk · contribs) are unreliable and do not establish notability. Analysis of the sources in the article:
1. Brant Gurganus (24 March 2004). "MTAC: more than a calculator". Retrieved 13 March 2011. The project was originally created by Slava Pestov of jEdit fame. – SourceForge, a free webhosting service, is not a reliable source because of the lack of editorial oversight.
2. Scott Beatty (8 February 2005). "Use jEdit to edit your PHP". sitepoint.com. Retrieved 13 March 2011. The core developer of jEdit is Slava Pestov. – sitepoint.com receives, and pays for, user-generated content. It is similar to Examiner.com, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia. I note that the author, Scott Beatty, has written only one article on sitepoint.com and that the subject, Slava Pestov, is mentioned but once—in the "Acknowledgements" section: "The core developer of jEdit is Slava Pestov."
3. "jEdit. Download jEdit for free at sourceforge.net". Retrieved 13 March 2011. – a download link from SourceForge that fails to mention the subject does not establish notability.
4. "Voir Factor. Factor - Factor: an extensible interactive language". Retrieved 13 March 2011. ...emigrated to New Zealand at the age of 7. – oujda-portail.net, a video-hosting website, is dubiously reliable.
5. Slava Pestov. "Slava Pestov's corner of the web". Retrieved 13 March 2011. – the subject's personal website does not establish notability.
6. "ComplexCalc version 1.0.1". Retrieved 13 March 2011. I haven't touched this since 1997, when I was 12 years old... – the subject's personal website does not establish notability.
A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. This is the same with a Google Scholar search and a Google Books search.
The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Because none of the sources used in the article are remotely reliable, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and cannot be merged to Factor (programming language). Cunard (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Szatmari (geologist)

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

Article dePRODded by creator. PROD concern was "Article is basically unreferenced (only "reference" is to an article published by the subject". Web of Science lists only 25 articles, cited 327 times in total with an h-index of 10. GS gives an h-index of 6 (searching for "Peter Szatmari and geology" - there is another researcher in a different field of the same name). Szatmari is first or last author on only a few of these articles. The external links go to an interview in his employer's magazine (therefore not independent), a poster abstract, and another primary article. No other independent sources available. Does not meet WP:PROF." As the only change to the article since it was PRODded was the removal of the PROD tag, the concern still stands. Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites are 45, 39, 35, 16, 10, 7, 6 so h index = 6 per nom. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Is it possible this http://degeo.degeo.ufop.br/presidente.htm and http://degeo.degeo.ufop.br/O_Snet.htm are enoughfor notability? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm not sure what this means; I've never heard of a conference with an "honorary president" before. In general, I will remark that for academics of a certain seniority, organizing or helping to organize a conference is standard and not a sign of anything remarkable. Ray^Talk 12:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Web of Science - h-score of 10 (61 46 44 34 34 21 13 13 12 12 12 10 10) also might be enough for this field! (Msrasnw (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have occasionally seen "honorary presidents" of meetings before and it is an honor, especially if this concerns a major international conference (but in those cases it is very rare). However, this seems to be a fairly small local symposium, not the kind of major honors mentioned in WP:PROF. An h-index of 10 (like I already mentioned in the nom) is far from establishing notability, even in this field (there are many journals with impact factors above 2, for example, indicating that this is not an extremely low-citation-density field). --Crusio (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the h-numbers, sheer number of citations ("widely cited"), and presidency of a major conference, are enough for me. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In most fields, including this one, this amount of citations and h index are rather below the median. And what makes you think this is a "major conference" and not some local event? --Crusio (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is major because it is International. The title of the conference was "XII Simpósio Nacional de Estudos Tectônicos – SNET 2009 – VI International Symposium on Tectonics". My Portuguese is poor, but Professor Google says that translates to "XII National Symposium of Tectonic Studies - SNET 2009 - VI International Symposium on Tectonics." This guy gets to be honorary chair of a conference dealing with perhaps one of the most exciting and emerging fields of science, tectonics. If ipso facto he doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, then we might want to revisit the guideline. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we have to revisit it more than what is already there: "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." From [36]. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can call their conference 'international', but would a conference with an international attendance have a website only in Portuguese? Qwfp (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And with most talks also having Portuguese titles? Also, look at how the program is produced, this does not look like the product of a major conference, it's what small societies do: produce a program with Microsoft WORD... --Crusio (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to me sufficiently notable to meet WP:prof via a h-index of 10 and via his presidency of the conference. We seem to have surprisingly few Brazilian (or Hungarian) geologists (Msrasnw (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry to remain a skeptic here, but what evidence do we have that this conference was "major"? The program lists 90 posters. Generally, most participants at such a meeting will have a poster. Adding speakers and a few without a poster makes this a meeting of perhaps 200 participants. Calling a symposium "international" is easy, but doesn't make something "major". (Back in '97 I organized an international meeting myself and we had about 40 attendants from all over the world, but despite being "international", that meeting was decidedly "minor"). Geology (especially related to oil and such) is a huge field. I think that being honorary president of a symposium this size absolutely does not count as a "major honor" and an h-index of 10 is absolutely way below the notability barrier (and that in itself casts doubt on the value of this "major honor"). I agree that we don't have many articles on Hungarian or Brazilian geologists, but that doesn't mean we should have different standards for them, that would be patronizing. Before accepting this symposium presidency as a major honor, I really need to see evidence of that. --Crusio (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many newspapers or other sources from that area have articles online and open to searching from that long ago? Google books for his name and the word "geolist" gives two results mentioning his work. [37] Google for his name and the word "evaporites", which is what he was famed for studying, and you get 409 results. [38] Sorting through that for just the results on educational and government sites, those that end with .edu, .gov, or .org, and filtering out any that mention Wikipedia, there are 28 results.[39] He may be notable for work other than just the evaporites of course. The same search without that word in it, shows 7,110 results[40] but that's because other people have the same name. His work as a geolists does seem to be widely cited. Need an expert on the subject. Dream Focus 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are numbers of Ghits an argument in AfD discussions? So he's cited in two (!) books, which really is miles from being enough to meet WP:PROF. Searching for his name and evaporites gives 34 results for me (one of them WP), none of them substantial. As has been remarked above multiple times, his work is far from being widely cited. --Crusio (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many educational and government webpages mention him counts to his notability, since it means his work is cited. And for a geologist, that's counts as a lot of citedness. ;) Dream Focus 06:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable geologist who is working on finding oil off Brazil. More than enough for me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he's "notable" is what we are discussing here. If he's a "notable geologist", we could close this AfD right now. Could you perhaps tell us why you think he's notable? What criteria of WP:PROF are being met? --Crusio (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to have been interviewed and reported on in some good sources. In general that is enough for an article to be kept. I'm not a big fan of special requirements for members of different occupations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but which good sources interview him? We only have one link to an interview in the bulletin of his employer. Which good sources report on him? We only have a low number of citations of his work. These are not the same thing as when somebody is mentioned in a newspaper article or something like that, they really mean much less than that. Because this is different and because this can easily be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with academics is the reason we have a special guideline here. Every academic (generally already when they're still graduate students) publishes some works that are cited at least a couple of dozen times. If that established notability, any academic from grad students up should be covered. I'm fine with that, but then we should do away with the whole concept of notability and reduce WP to LinkedIn or Facebook... --Crusio (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the interview being refered to is the Norman Gall interview in O Estado de S. Paulo. A worry I have is would someone writing in Portuguese and working in Brazil require the same kind of h-scores as someone in the US or UK to prove notability. It seems to me we are setting the bar too high for non-US/UK academics and are perhaps losing some non-US notables in order to keep out US non-notables. (PS I have added some refs/cits to the other Brazilian geologist AP Crosta who also seems notable to me) (Msrasnw (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

That's not an interview. It's an article on the risks of oil exploration and deep (ground) waters in which Szatmari is mentioned in passing. As for your suggestion that people working in non-US/UK countries should be subjected to more relaxed standards, I think that is a really bad idea. I know that such people have a harder time in science (heck, I'm one of them): they have to publish in a language not their own, they often have less generous funding, etc. However, science is an international enterprise and within science people are all held to the same standards. If somebody applies for grant funding, the money goes to the best proposal (or so one would hope), not to whom had to work hardest to get that proposal together. In addition, applying different standards would be impractical: not a few of these non-US/UK scientists at some point end up working in the US, so now we would have to distinguish between native-born or not? Finally, I would really resent it if my work would be held to a lower standard, just because I'm not from the US/UK. I am certain you did not intend it that way, but you surely can see that accepting such a proposal would be condescending. To get back from this more general point to the current topic, Szatmari's employer is Pertrobas, a huge oil company, so he certainly did not face the same funding problems as academics working at Brazilian Universities do. Many Hungarians that I know speak excellent English, the current universal language of science (including geology), and there is no reason why Szatmari could not have published high-impact articles in English. Fact is, he didn't, which is what this discussion is about: he definitely does not meet WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see any evidence of him meeting WP:GNG either. --Crusio (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia has 6 different awards. If Szatmari was an important figure even only within Brazil, I would have expected him to have received at least one of these (and note that these national awards obviously don't classify as the "major international awards" mentioned in WP:PROF). --Crusio (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another reply: My worry is more along the lines of - a leading Brazilian (or Estonian or Argentinian academic ) notable in their own country would not be allowed in - whereas anyone notable in the US or UK is deemed internationally notable. For example being "honorary president" of a national science symposium organised by national science organisation would be ok for notability if it was in the US or UK but not if it is in Brazil. This seems to me to indicate we may have a bias. The language issue compounds things. Somehow publishing/researching in Portuguese seems to be being dismissed. I tried web of science for P Szatmari and it calculates a h–index of 11 for him (26 things cited 350 times with an average citations per item of 13.46 and a h-index of 11) – but for example this paper (Szatmari, P., Batista, J., Francolin, L., Zanotto, O. & Wolff S., 1987. Evoluçao Tectônica da margem equatorial brasileira. Revista brasileira de Geociências, 17, no. 2, 180-188). is not included in that. This paper seems to me a fairly well citated paper. Using this (Googling it) it seems to have many more than 20 citations. Also there is another brief mention in the notable Brazilian paper - DIÁRIO DE S. PAULO 20/11/2010 País explora camada há meio século. Where he is described as "Peter Szatmari, um dos principais especialistas sobre sal no mundo e colaborador da Petrobras". I hope I am not being condescending rather my aim is to try to be fair by trying to reconize that we might have to try harder to find evidence of notabilty and perhaps be more flexible on interpretation of our guidlines. Also I would like to suggest that your reference to the "major international awards" mentioned in WP:PROF, seems to be potentially misleading. My reading of WP:Prof 2 "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national ... level." and "Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1". And would therefor like to note that national awards such as those given by the Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia might well count as the "major national awards" of notable notable academic societies mentioned in WP:PROF. In an argumentative spirit but with sincere good wishes :) (Msrasnw (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I would not consider being honorary president of a 100-200 participants national symposium in the US a sign for notability either. As far as I am concerned, there is no double standard here. And like it or not, if a scientists wants his work to have some impact, it has to be published in English (personally, I think Dutch would be much easier, of course...) Twenty-odd citations for a paper really is not very much. An in-passing mention in a newspaper, be it Brazilian or American, does not establish notability. And as I have argued above, I am not even convinced that he is notable on a national level, given that the has not received any of the several awards that the Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia gives yearly, has not been president of that society, or has been the subject of significant coverage in any national newspaper. --Crusio (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Difficult; it's a page I'd like to support, but it doesn't quite meet our notability criteria. He may satisfy the criteria later though, so it could perhaps be archived under the geology wikiproject.—RJH (talk)
Keep — the page is well-referenced, demonstrating notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biography is well referenced, and this geologist is working on the very important search for oil off the coast of Brazil. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kilat Serrada

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

A non notable martial arts with insufficient reliable sources to support its nobility. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also, cannot find any info on the Master. The art seems to be one of dozens of derivatives of modern arnis.AerobicFox (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search failed to find reliable and independent sources that show this art is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of redirecting, merging, moving or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Flare

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

Another mediocre article with substandard sources to support its notability which shouldn't exist. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article being mediocre shouldn't be the factor. The question is if you think WP should be an info source for things like the Transformers. If so keep, if not delete. This article is informative to a person looking for info on these fictional robots. Secondary sources are not likely to say much about them, and even if they did that would not justify the article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a useful argument the article doesn't have reliable third person information to support its claims of notability therefore it fails via WP:RS. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be your supporter if you want to launch a campaign to change WP culture so that, for instance, ONE article on the Transformers would be enough. (Okay maybe an article on each TV series, movie, etc. as well.) On the other hand if explaining fictional characters is considered part of WP's role, as it seems to be, then it is kind of silly to require each character to be covered by secondary sources. The a fact that some newspaper published an article on Signal Flare would not make him more worthy of an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that isn't what I'd expect to see if I was looking for an article on signal flares. I'm not convinced minor Transformers have notability but I'm not going to propose any particular !vote here. MLA (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect, it's a character from a anime series, which is mentioned on List_of_Transformers:_Energon_characters#Omnicons, so that might be appropriate. Mathewignash (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge Signal Flare should redirect to Flare (pyrotechnic), but this Transformers character can probably be merged somewhere useful if it's not worth keeping as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Signal flare, not a proper name. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "WP is a database for pop-culture trivia." If it was really an encyclopedia there would be one article on the Transformers telling us what they are and only the very most important fictional characters, like Hamlet and Sherlock Holmes, would have their own articles.Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri Chetna Center, Piscataway, New Jersey

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

Gayatri Chetna Center was nominated for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted. It was re-created the next day with essentially the same content. Another put an 'under construction' tag on the article and gave the creator an opportunity to provide adequate references from secondary sources but none have been given and it remains deficient in notability per WP:GNG. Warfieldian (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to meet the notability guidelines and contains only primary sources. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing to indicate notability beyond that of any local house of worship or religious center. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Big Dom 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Bishop

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

No evidence of notability separate from the TV show. Claim of "infamy" not substantiated by reliable sources. WP:BEFORE (i.e. the snide suggestion from the de-prodder, as if I hadn't actually looked in Google Scholar and Google Books) fails to demonstrate significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the WP:BEFORE comment was entirely appropriate, given the text of your PROD. If you want me to not say "search first", and you've actually searched first, then just simply say, "I searched first". Simple, no? More detailed rationale to follow. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources: Evening Independent, 1982, CNN, 2006, Something in Norwegian that Google News thinks is an RS, which I include here because it seems to be central to the piece. There's at least two other pay-per-view sources at Google News Archive. As the article notes, the sketch is also known as "the church police", (as evidenced by this program listing) which yields other RS hits--Carolina Journal, 2002, and four others which also appear pay-per-view, three of which appear unique, via Google News Archive. That's in roughly 5 minutes of searching. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (And to follow up on the other comments--if you're only looking in Google Scholar and Books for RS, you're really missing out on Google News Archive. Since reviews are perfectly good RS'es for cultural phenomena like comedy sketches, you'll miss out on many of the most relevant sources if you omit it) Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More sources from non-free news databases (Lexis-Nexis Academic):
  - "Monty Python's boring circus: The twits and cross-dressers weren't really all that funny." The Ottawa Citizen, September 03, 1999, FINAL, 1126 words, Ed Barrett. Skit one of several mentioned, no substantial commentary on the skit itself.
  - "Not Quite Dead: Monty Python To Reunite?" Say Anything, August 23, 2009 Sunday 9:02 AM EST, 291 words. trivial mention.
  - "Finding laughs on the Web" The Leader-Post (Regina, Saskatchewan), September 14, 2002 Saturday Final Edition, Weekender; Cyberbeat; Pg. G3, 473 words, Kevin O'Connor. Again, skit mentioned as a representative Python skit without substantial commentary.
  - "Can anyone else tell right from wrong?" The Houston Chronicle, March 18, 2002, Monday, 727 words, JAMES HOWARD GIBBONS. Interesting piece here, where the editorial writer uses the punchline of the skit in reference to Andrea Yates' sanity.
  - "DRIVE DEFENSIVELY, NOT AGGRESSIVELY" Fort McMurray Today (Alberta), July 29, 2005 Friday, EDITORIAL/OPINION; Gimme Some Grammar; Pg. A4, 850 words, BY MICHAEL HALL. As above, a reference to the skit's punchline ("it's a fair cop, but society's to blame.") in an opinion piece.
Note: 98% of the article is just copied from another wiki. Syn 07:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not really a notable sketch that happened to be one of hundreds performed by some of the most notable comedians of the 20th century. This isn't exactly the Dead Parrot sketch in notability terms. MLA (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an ex-sketch. Sandman888 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the above as references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain West hip hop

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

Article about a sub-genre of hip hop music. Fails OR. Strikerforce (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard this, and Google proves it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 07:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Made up term that hasn't entered common language. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radhakrishna K E

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Likely autobiography by Raghuvicky (talk · contribs). I don't see notability per WP:POLITICIAN. bender235 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is hard to find in Gnews. Heck, may fail WP:V on most of the article, given how difficult it is to search for somebody in India when you only have a last name and initials to go by (Googling did confirm somebody with a name spelled approximately like that came in a very distant 3rd in an election). I think this is one of those cases where the spirit of WP:V says we should delete this, as improvement is not likely, and the odds of passing the GNG are difficult to estimate due to problems finding sourcing relative to the unimportance of the subject. Ray^Talk 17:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Striking per Phil's very nice work below. I am decently abashed, but glad he was able to fix up the article. I do suggest that, if this article is kept, it be renamed so the last name doesn't come first. Ray^Talk 20:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's nothing at all difficult about searching via initials and surname, as that is the style by which many people are known in India. All 51 of these sources found by Google News refer to this subject, so verifiability of the basic facts in the article is not an issue. I also don't see any evidence that this is a likely autobiography, and notability is not claimed as a politician, so the link to WP:POLITICIAN is a red herring. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to good research by Phil Bridger, but rename to K. E. Radhakrishna. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete due to insufficient participation; undeletion is to be on request as though this were a PROD. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dancehall Queen Mo Mo

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

Very thinly sourced BLP that does not demonstrate why this performer is notable. Hasteur (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources cited at article. Google News finds nothing under MoMo or Peach Gyal, her stage names. The only thing] under her real name, Maude Francato, was from the Jamaica Star Online; I don't know if that is a reliable source but in any case it is insufficient. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails music notability guidelines Big Dom 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Broadcast (U2 video)

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

Fails notability guidelines at WP:NM. Article is about a concert that was aired on TV, but not released on any video format. Many concerts are aired on TV and there is nothing particularly notable about this one. This concert could be briefly mentioned in Zoo TV: Live from Sydney (a concert video from the same tour) or Zoo TV Tour (the tour itself). –Dream out loud (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This actually asserts sufficient notability, but it lacks verification for any of its assertions. If the national/international broadcasts can be sourced, it should be kept. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how a single broadcast of a random concert by a notable band grants notability to the concert. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need for this page, no one would ever want to read it, maybe except Bono himself, the guy just can't take the fact that his music career is in freefall.Wayne Paine (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't we just focus on this deletion nomination instead of making irrelevant side comments? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT if you plan to make useful contributions to deletion discussions in the future. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor; per nom.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 07:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marbella University

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

This is a directory entry for a private university in Marbella. I tried to verify the contents but there are very few Google hits and virtually al of them are simply churnalism, reprinting of press releases from the company itself. The creator has no other contributions to Wikipedia. The place has only been open a year, which probably explains the absence of any proper analytical sources about it. There's no evidence of accreditation but accreditation in Spain is unbelievably lax anyway. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need for this article. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 21:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unaccredited private university which has been around less than 2 years. Delete unless someone can find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage (need not be in English) to show that this school satisfies WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - long-standing consensus is that degree-awarding bodies are notable. None of being private, less than two years old or unaccredited affects that. Indeed, we state that this is unaccredited so that imparts valuable information to prospective students. TerriersFan (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (changing to Delete, see below.) It exists and grants degrees, so consensus at WP:SCHOOL is that it deserves an article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-standing consensus that unaccredited degree-awarding bodies are notable? That doesn't sound right. I doubt that long-standing consensus is that any laser printer that "awards" degrees from the back of a Ukrainian tavern is notable. What sort of printer output does this long-standing consensus consider "degree-awarding" if accreditation is not what makes it a degree? --Closeapple (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); no third party evidence this school even operates on a regular basis, let alone meets any Wikipedia criteria. (I have no idea what to say further about the claims of "long standing consensus" by two rather experienced editors above, other that there is certainly not Wikipedia consensus that a subject can unilaterally qualify itself for a Wikipedia article just by itself claiming to be something, like an "degree-awarding body", without anyone else recognizing its claim.) In any case, WP:ORG#No inherent notability is the controlling guideline: "No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists". Schools are explicitly included in WP:ORG#Primary criteria: "A ... school ... or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." WP:SCHOOL points to WP:ORG for notability guidelines. Per WP:PROVEIT, it is up to the editors to provide these WP:Reliable sources when making claims. In this article, the only footnotes are two reprints of press release paragraphs. So, no reliable third party sources about this university at all, let alone enough to establish WP:ORG, or even third party evidence of this school operating on a regular basis. The operator of this school is also behind "Mallorca University", "Benidorm University" (claiming opening October 2011), "Benidorm Business School" (claiming opening October 2011), "European Business College" ("a satellite campus of Marbella University", claiming opening October 2011 in Benidorm), the "RC Institute for Global Individuation" (RCIGI) and the "Individuation Academy". Most of these domains are hiding behind a domain privacy provider that itself is hiding behind a private mailbox (i.e. drop box) at a UPS Store (a.k.a. Mail Boxes Etc.) in Bellevue, Washington. Most of the external links on the left side and in the alleged "campus news" sections of these "school" sites link to commercial hospitality directories/link farms run (from the same postal address as shown in this article) by a relative of the "university" owner. --Closeapple (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Closeapple. I am impressed by your research. What is the status of this item from Euro Weekly News? Is Euro Weekly News not a Reliable Source? I agree the item reads like a press release. How about this from spanishnews.es? --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both are press releases not disclosed as such by the alleged "news" sites:
    1. Euro Weekly News so-called "article" is the same press release duplicated at http://prlog.org/10654190 and about 35 other places on Google; the picture is from [41] — which, as a side note, is probably a stock photo, which my Spanish friend described as "very very very USA. None of those people have lived in Spain, that is for sure."
    2. spanishnews.es is owned by Absolute Imperium/Crystal Consulting, the publicity/link farm operation I discussed above: Absolute Imperium is owned by Gregor Schellhammer; these "universities" are owned by Eduard (Edward) Schellhammer (named in the press release). The "news" site and "university" site are each publishing gratuitous publicity containing links to each other: see, for example, Marbella University's "news" http://www.marbellauniversity.com/mu-students-at-the-villa-padierna/ — in which two women are posing with the head of a hotel that is a client of Absolute Imperium, and whose hotel main website isn't linked directly, but instead linked as marbellahotelsspain.net, one of Absolute Imperium's paid portals. --Closeapple (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've convinced me. Changing my vote to delete based on doubt whether the school is actually a real degree-granting institution. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Displeased Records

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

No indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY. Has had a directory listing added as an external link since prod added. Prod disputed. Google searches show very few hits and nothing to establish notability noq (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep 186,000 Google hits are enough in my opinion (for indie labels an actually decent result). "Discography" section should be deleted per WP:DIRECTORY, point 4, in my opinion.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 07:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure where you are seeing that many google hits. When I search for "Displeased records" it only shows 33,000 in the initial count but that peters out at 603. (showing 100 results/page). noq (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely agree with GOP above. Simply using the first source link above returns (for me) 184,000 hits. It is likely that independent, reliable sources may be found. Additionally, the label has several notable bands on their roster. Definitely delete the directory farm. As a note, Noq, is it possible that you have a filter on your search engine? Using a filter would certainly reduce the number of hits returned. Cind.amuse 20:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment remove the -wikipedia from the search and the number of hits is vastly reduced for some reason. noq (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When using the source link above, the "-wikipedia" term ~~is removed~~ automatically removes sites from the results which reference Wikipedia. I get 184,000 without "Wikipedia" in the results. Curious why they're different though. The only thing I could think of was the use of a filter. Weird. Oh well. Cind.amuse 20:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I click the source link above it adds the -wikipedia to the search along with the article name in quotes. Google hit counts are a bit screwy anyway, as I said above when I search for "Displeased records" it returns 33,000 but paging through at 100 hits per page runs out of hits after around 600. noq (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful source of in-links to articles of bands on the label. Multiple notable bands make a notable label, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Church of God International (USA). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Day Christians - Norway

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

Merge with parent denomination or delete. Not notable enough to stand alone.—C45207 | Talk 14:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Intercontinental Church of God, which does not have an article yet (unless it is the same as (Church of God International (USA)]]). See "Gateway to Local ICG Sites" for a list, mostly by US city but including Canada, Australia, Norway and Scotland. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Seventh Day Christians - Norway and The Intercontinental Church of God could receive a 'redirect' status as both articles have now been placed in the Church of God International (USA) article. User: JoVam 10.03.2011 —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughter in the Vatican

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS; barely more than an unsourced stub, the trivial amount of content in here could be merged into the parent article (Exhorder) with barely a ripple. I think a straight delete is in order; failing that, a merge and delete (an unlikely search term to say the least), and failing that, a merge and redirect. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Album by a notable band with at least some significant coverage in reliable sources. A merge is a possibility but that can be discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles.--Michig (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an acceptable stub article, though it could use expansion with more reviews. Such reviews are available at Metal Observer (site apparently blocked by WP) and Ultimate Guitar for example. This album does have some notability, at least in the metal collector scene, due to unfortunate conspiracy theories about Pantera ripping it off. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahseen Jabbary

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

PROD removed, without comment, by what seems to be the author's IP. The article is just a list with no context or encyclopaedic content. It reads like a dump of a cv/resume. Notability and verifiability are in question as the list is mostly referenced to other Wikipedia articles where the author's assumed IP has added mention of the subject himself. The non-Wikipedia references are enough to verify that the subject is a Dutch football coach but not much more than that. Googling reveals not much. The subject is apparently available for work ([42]). The only detailed coverage of his career ([43] comes from his agency but it does at least agree with much of what is on the list. It does not seem to add up to notability to me even if he does have extensive coaching experience. He gets just three Google News hits. DanielRigal (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is merely a list and in no way resembles an encyclopedia entry. It is more of a data sheet.Rotmo (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this news piece confirms that Jabbary was coach of Syrian team Al-Majd at the 2009 AFC Cup. The AFC Cup is the highest continental club competition in Asia, and so I believe that this guy is notable. Article needs a massive clean up though - which I'll do so momentarily. Giant Snowman 17:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking a lot better than it was before but I still wonder if the notability is enough. He is a coach not a manager, right? Do we have any guidelines on when coaches are notable? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In football, the term 'coach' and 'manager' are sometimes interchangeable; looking at match reports & the context of the sources, it appears that Jabbary was actually the 'Manager' i.e. number 1 in charge! Giant Snowman 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somebody keeps on reposting the original badly referenced and unencyclopaedic content into the article. Ironically their attempt to use the article for promotion is undermining GiantSnowman's attempt to save it by making it into a decent stub. I think we may have an ongoing problem here as they seem pretty determined. If the article is kept then I recommend to semi-protect it. If it is deleted then I recommend to salt it, at least for a few months. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A head coach/manager of a team in a fully professional league that took part in continental competition. He is now with VVV-Venlo according to this. If the article is kept then I agree with DanielRigal. Protection would stop the persistent disruption from IPs. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust that site one bit - no mention of Jabbary AT ALL from the VVV-Venlo official site. Giant Snowman 14:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, that is why I didn't put it in as a reference. I searched for mentions of him at quite a few of the clubs it claims he was involved with, but didn't find anything. Unless he was involved very low down the pecking order at most of those clubs, then it's someone being creative. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the most likely explanation is that he was involved with those clubs in a minor or temporary capacity and his agency is trying to trump it up to sound more impressive than it really is. I doubt they would put outright lies on his profile. That would be too likely to backfire on them. There is also the claim that he may be Dutch instead of, or as well as, Iraqi. I doubt they would lie about that either but we don't have any solid RS to support it. When I nominated for deletion my main concern was notability but clearly verifiability is also a problem. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tupac Shakur. Actually, the consensus is to merge, but since it is unclear whether there is any BLP-sourced material that could be merged, I'm implementing a redirect now to let editors merge any appropriate and sourced content from the history. Sandstein 07:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Garland (Black Panther)

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

Living person, only claim to notability is that he is somebody else's father. No sourcing except for unreliable websites associated with his son. Barely-sourced problematic BLP statements. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited. I'd recommend merging to Tupac Shakur except nothing is cited to a reliable source here (except the Rolling Stone piece, which editors of the Tupac article should take a look at as it doesn't seem to be cited there). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appopriately sourced material to Tupac Shakur. --JN 466 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has notability. He's mention in books and he's been in a documentary called Biggie & Tupac. He also as 829,000 results on Google. --Dogfacebob Dogfacebob 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Well sourced article, the subject is clearly notable enough.--Dogfacebob (Dogfacebob) 22:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Double !vote struck out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Well-sourced"? You must be kidding. Of the three sources cited, one is a dead link, and neither of the other two is even remotely adequate in terms of WP:RS, certainly not when it concerns sensitive and potentially defamatory WP:BLP content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge referenced material to his sons article. No independent notability.AerobicFox (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no referenced material in this article, because none of the sources is reliable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This seems like a fairly straightforward example of the Wikipedia principle that "Notability is not Inherited." Carrite (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I make special note that the Rolling Stone article is the only reliable source about him. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rolling Stone "article" is a 404 deadlink. What reliable source are people talking about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syren Sexton

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Claimed awards, supposedly representing website polls, are given by product suppliers to their own performers, fail the "well-known"/"significant" standard, and therefore do not demonstrate notability. PROD removed by IP sock of indef-blocked user. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ms Sexton, for better or worse, is a performer on the rise and clearly notable in her field. Profile on the up, new and up-to-date personal website, working with major pornographers in UK and US, recent dps feature in "Nuts" magazine. Removal of this wiki seems pointless, as it is sure (though not by me) to be recreated. For the record, I'm not a sock of a banned user and I removed the PROD which self-identifed (here) [44] as being in 'bad faith' by the proposer, HW. Not sure why HW thinks I am a sock, nor much do I care, but he/she is barking up the wrong tree here. Irrelevant of course, this is an incoherent AfD that reeks of personal distaste. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference cited by 82.41.20.82 does not show that the person who placed the PROD tag admitted to doing so in bad faith. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's entitled 'bad faith prod removals' and concerns the removal of a bad faith prod. This is straightforward. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I think he was accusing someone else of removing the PROD tag in bad faith. See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Bad faith PROD removals on the same page for comparison. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like it fails WP:PORNBIO --Guerillero | My Talk 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - PORNBIO fail. "SHAFTA" is not a notable award. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing a claim that 'SHAFTA' is a notable award. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sha Dixon

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no news hits at all found. An example of WP:TOOSOON; she "received her first break in 2011". Maybe she will become notable later, but she is not at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry about this realman. I usually like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nominator but this is a poorly sourced biography of a living person and the nominator's rationale is sound. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remi Clair

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

Claim of notability is questionable, IMDB lists him deep in the credits, hardly a "star"ing role as article claims. References provided to canada.com mention are about the film and mention him only in passing. The male model website does not appear to be a reliable source. Other references provide only very brief information about the film and do not demonstrate notability of this person. RadioFan (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am objecting this proposed deletion. No matter his name lists him deep in the IMDB credits but I have seen the movie myself and actually he is the second lead star in the movie opposite Kit Koon after the lead pair Gulshan Grover and Sian Sladen. He was a lead actor in many TV series in Mumbai. I have already contributing some information to this article. This article should not be deleted --- User:Realman007 16:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article should be deleted, he is a known person, I remember when he won Mr North India contest when I was in India. - - Paramjit from UK, 9th March, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.104.199 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 15:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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