Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 7

< 6 July	8 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The True Faith Jehovah’s Witnesses Association

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

I'm going to lay out a few points as I build a case for deletion:

1. The main body of Jehovah's Witnesses in Romania, the Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania, already has an article on it written from reliable sources.

Comment Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania is a country-specific article about Jehovah's Witnesses proper. I'm not altoghether sure that the Romania-specific article about JWs is warranted because JW activities in Romania are not notable in comparison with a) JW activities in other countries and b) religious groups in Romania; I would therefore support deletion of that article. However... this article is about a group that is not part of Jehovah's Witnesses, but is a separation despite the similar name; that said, see below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I've done a copyedit on the other article about the actual JWs in Romania. It seems relatively well sourced, so it might be appropriate to keep it.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Romania has 18 officially recognized religions, all of which we can assume are notable. It also has several "religious associations", listed here, which have at least 300 members and may or may not be notable. "True Faith" isn't even that; it's merely an "association", of which there are many obscure ones not treated by independent sources, and this brings us no closer to showing notability.

3. If we look at the sources used in this article, they don't seem to rise to the level of independent notability for a stand-alone article or "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as demanded by WP:GNG. There's a link to an official site that doesn't help much. There's a paragraph based on the Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses detailing the Witnesses' persecution under Communism, something already mentioned extensively at Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania. There are a couple of citations of court decisions, which merely confirm the existence of "True Faith", not its notability. There's a link here, but Centers for Apologetics Research hardly seems a reliable, scholarly, peer-reviewed, neutral source. Finally, there is mention of a paper by a Radu Petre. Well, I looked over that paper and it turned out to be far more of a general introduction to the Witnesses than anything specifically about their activities in Romania.

4. Nowhere is the claim of 30,000 members substantiated.

In sum: yes, this group exists; no, there isn't enough significant coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. This is why I suggest deletion. I wouldn't mind a redirect, and if reliable sources turn up, I wouldn't mind mentioning them at Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania (we mention the Pentecostal Dissidents at Pentecostal Union of Romania, without any call for a separate article), but I really see no need for this article at present. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the suggestion to briefly mention this group at the other article if the country-specific article of JWs in Romania is to be retained. See comments above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. andy (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a copyedit of this article, but it is poorly sourced and seems barely notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not all religions, even if they claim tens of thousands of adherents, are notable. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject may well not be notable, but we should discount point 2 of the nomination as a reason for deletion. Governments do not decide what is or is not notable, and, quite frankly, I am shocked that, 20 years on, the Romanian government still thinks that it is its business to say what is or is not a valid religion, and that the nominator appears to agree with it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I meant to say is that, yes, official recognition in this case is likely to imply notability, and lack of recognition is likely to mean a lack of notability. Have a look at the numbers: in 2002, a gigantic 0.4% of the population declared themselves in the "other religion" category - and this was a year before the Witnesses gained recognition, so if one subtracts them, it's likely 0.2% today. Most of these are a smattering of Protestant sects that have received scant coverage in reliable sources.
- Given that the government pays clergy salaries for officially-recognized religions and confers other financial benefits on them (such as paying teachers to teach these religions in state schools), yes, it's perfectly reasonable to limit the "official" pool. Everyone else (other than, say, destructive cults) is free to worship as they please, either as religious associations or associations, just not to feed at the taxpayer trough while doing so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a government endorses a particular group is not on its own a valid determinant for whether a group is notable. In some cases (though not necessarily here), the very resistance to the group could make it notable. However, I'm not entirely sure that's the case here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again (did I not say it clearly enough?), recognition is likely to indicate notability, without being a hard-and-fast determinant of such. This is particularly so in a democracy bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and which strives to treat all denominations impartially. Naturally, entities like the Chinese house churches, the Bahá'í Faith in Iran and Christianity in Saudi Arabia are notable despite being illegal, but that's not the case here. After all, this group has been legal and fully operational for 20 years, it just doesn't receive government funding. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying you were wrong, just that government endorsement is not a criteria for notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PSYCH-K

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

This appears to be a non-notable and non-scientific psychotherapy technique. Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this will not be deleted. The "scientific standards" that are used to criticize this, have not yet understood the impact of quantum physics, which started to be actually science in 1900 (to be exact: 1838 - Faraday, 1900 - Plank, 1905 - Einstein) For me i can hardly take any science serious, that bases medical decisions on a newtonian principle! I'd call these kinds of science "old-age science". There's a lot of people out there that use this method successfully, so I think that this is relevant. My Voice is for NOT delete. --Jojobader (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC) — Jojobader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Unsourced psychobabble. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Degrees of Separation Acquisition Strategy

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

Contested prod. Original synthesis. Nowhere in the sources is this concept ever mentioned by this name, and Google returns nothing but this article and a few Wikipedia bot edit summaries. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Possibly an interesting idea for a magazine article or three, which can then be summarized into a wikipedia article. but full WP:OR as it stands. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original synthesis likely intended to advertise some consulting business: a customer acquisition model whereby participants reach out to their online social network and email contacts within an invite-only private membership format. One more version of Make Money Fast on the Internet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a couple of the sources are blogs or other unreliable types. Dethlock99 (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - just call it plain old spam, because it certainly looks that way. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and surely looks like spam. First Light (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, very spammy. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. We've taken your comments into consideration and decided to replace this page with a new page focused on the Three Degrees of Separation concept. Jjsharon (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable spam. Also Delete Three Degrees of Separation, a duplicate article that appears to have been created to subvert the deletion process. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable meme coatrack. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. Crossover

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

It is about an unnotable online flash game and it is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I Feel Tired (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Keep - though open to other suggestions. Several points:

Flash games are generally non-notable, since they are equivalent of self-published sources. However, some flash games do attract attention of gaming media to make reliable coverage. SMBX qualifies with sources from Wired, Game Informer, and Entertainment Weekly, among others.
Flash games also are often topics that have temporary notability - they are big when announced and then coverage disappears within a few weeks. In the case of SMBX , there has been continuing coverage of the game with the recent update to include an additional character and seemingly continued support by its creator. It is exhibiting the same behavior of a long tail that I'd expect to see for any other video game - just at a much smaller scale w.r.t. sources.

So while I think this should be kept, I do see also some issues that wouldn't prevent me from agreeing to an alternate solution that retains the information. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - multiple third party seemingly reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered on several major gaming sites, including refs provided (which are reliable) and Kotaku. Passes WP:GNG. --Teancum (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above: has multiple independent RS'es, overcoming the presumption that such games are NN. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and please ask people next time. Jumping straight to the last-ditch option that is deletion causes all sorts of avoidable unpleasantness. I know that a lot of editors make deletion nominations first and see if they were founded later, but that's because they're dumb and smell bad. --Kiz o r 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this game is indeed extremely notable. WCityMike 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With Love, Ruby Blue

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

Non notable fashion label. DimaG (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 19:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works about the armed resistance movement in Communist Romania

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

Not an encyclopedia article, only a list of works about the resistant movement in Communist Romania. DimaG (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. If the list has some value as a research aid, then it would fit well in the author's userspace. Is there a wikiproject somewhere that might find some benefit, as well? In either case, it's absolutely inappropriate as an encyclopedic article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not an encyclopedia article -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we Merge this to Romanian anti-communist resistance movement under Further Reading or something ? None of the works are notable, so it's not an encyclopaedic navigational list or what-not, but having it over at the main article would be good. Claritas § 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The list is huge. A further reading section should be a careful selection of relevant material. Can you vouch for any of this material? Can you prune it down? And in any case, the list, despite its name is a list of Romanian language works. So that is hardly suitable material for a further reading section in an English language wiki. -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaida artillery and preps camp

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

This "terrorist training camp" simply receives one mention in an official document - there's no significant coverage in reliable sources to substantiate notability per WP:GNG. Claritas § 21:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this meets the WP:GNG, or even that the article title is correct - the single governmental source that mentions this in passing speaks of "a" camp, not "the" camp. Unless non-trivial coverage can be found (and I can't find any), this should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a single mention in a government report is a far cry from passing WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Karanacs alludes, in the source "Al Qaida artillery and preps camp" is descriptive and not a proper noun. If there were a number of these "Al Qaida artillery and preps camp"s in Afghanistan, covered and called that by reliable sources, then the descriptive term might be worthy of an article. But there's no evidence of that. First Light (talk)
Delete, one sentence in a single source does not add up to "Significant coverage". IQinn (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Birch Island

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

Non-notable: "The Lower Birch Island has only one home, and is a private island." Prodded once. Bxj (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is proposing delete and not the other options. --Bxj (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fairly superfluous. This is Articles for deletion. One doesn't come here unless one is nominating an article for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Regarding the detail that you picked up: in theory, yes, but in practice some users may get confused without me explicitly stating so. Other nominators might incorrectly suggest merge, etc. at an AfD, in practice. It's just to be non-ambiguous. --Bxj (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Almost no-one gets confused. This is, after all, in the Guide. There's no ambiguity. Furthermore, closing administrators can read. We really don't need to be told that a reply is a "Reply". Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - What's your point? It doesn't sound like you're making a correction to a mistake, or talking about the deletion request.--Bxj (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books tells me that Islands of the Mid-Maine Coast: Mount Desert to Machias Bay has things to say on the history of Upper and Lower Birch islands. Uncle G (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't tell who the nominator was on this one, although everyone seems to be critical of the guy... Mandsford 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I nominated this article for AfD because there is no hint of potential notability mentioned in the article, not even now, just like the 4,612 other non-notable small islands of Maine. With the situation remaining the same after the prod tag was removed, the next step was AfD. The original contributor has happened to submit three articles of similar nature, but even if the three articles were submitted by three different individuals, the reception by the Wikipedia general public would not have changed one bit, because the articles themselves are being judged, not the contributor(s). A different contributor would not have aided the notability problems inherent in this article. Any insinuation that the articles themselves are not what is being judged is completely baseless, but I would like to know if there was any narrative in particular that I might not have heard of. Instead of baseless insinuations, it should be as simple as an article meeting some level of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is the basis for this AfD proposal to begin with. --Bxj (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep: I spruced up the article some. After AfD closure, I might recommend moving to Birch Islands (Maine) and treating with Upper Birch Island at the same time. I am not sure, but it appears that upper birch island is now a preserve of the Nature Conservancy. I added a book source reference to the article which treats both islands together, and that grouping may make sense here as well -- they are labeled Birch Islands on the map i added as well. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would recommend against creating a Birch Islands (Maine) article. Lower Birch Island is a miniature, private island, with one house on it. Regardless of notability standards (I wouldn't find this notable for Wikipedia inclusion even if I owned it), if there's nothing to mention besides name and location, it could be mentioned instead in the bay article, along with all the other miniature islands that the bay contains, most of which apparently aren't mentioned on Wikipedia yet. Then you get the mention of Lower Birch Island in Wikipedia that you want, along with all the other islands in the bay and not just the two islands of Birch Islands. However, consider the fact that Maine contains 4,613 islands [1]. I'm not sure if this figure counts islands as small and non-notable as this one. There are far more islands globally, which is partially why we have notability standards on Wikipedia. --Bxj (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment As a former long time inhabitant of a New England coastal town myself, I could tell you that these bays tend to have several small islands in it that not even the locals are aware of. Maybe if you were a yacht enthusiast, you'll get to spot them visually during navigation so as to avoid running into it, but that's about it. Most have no notability by any standards. --Bxj (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whereever it makes most sense to organize the materials is fine with me, perhaps a redirect to the Pleasant Bay article, and listing verifiable islands there, with any verifiable information included, makes the most sense. I would note that the book I cited in the article does appear to have a brief history of each of the Birch Islands in it, including some disputes over ownership in the early 1800s, but I don't have full text access. If Maine has 4,613 islands, I think ultimately they all should be listed somewhere, but individual articles probably wouldn't be the best way to organize them for the reader.--Milowent (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine George

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

These articles are all about novelists who specialize in category romances. A category romance, by definition, is available for sale for only one month and then goes out of print. I have found no reviews of their books and have found no significant coverage in independent sources of the authors themselves. The best "sources" available are the publisher's website, or sites listing the author name and hte names of the books. BLPs deserve better. I think these authors don't meet WP:AUTHOR or the GNG and as such the articles should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR. Peteinterpol (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Dana boomer (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:AUTHOR and lack of significant coverage. Hekerui (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator did their research well. I concur. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dizon

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

Puff piece for a minor actor of questionable notability. No sources for claims of Emmy nominations, and "co-starred" seems a stretch, as most the roles appear to be as an extra or unnamed character. No significant coverage in independent third party publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see that he's been name-checked in several news articles, but there is no significant coverage of his life or his performances. I searched the Emmy nominations website and his name did not appear as a nominee or winner. Article does not meet the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of references to support notability claims. --Bxj (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable blp. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references given supports the claims of significance in the article. In fact one of them is a link to the web site of a completely different person with the same name (a clinical hypnotherapist). The other references are to IMDb, which, apart from not being a reliable source, confirms that he is an actor, producer, and writer, but does not support the claims of significance in the article (e.g. that he has "co-starred" in films). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since writing the above I have looked further at the article's history. I have found that the author of the article has also added other spurious references, nothing to do with the subject, which have been deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relix The Underdog

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

Possible autobiographical article about a musician of questionable notability. No significant coverage from independent third-party sources. Claims of notability are unsourced/unattributed. Provided links are either primary sources or user-generated content. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable musician, unsourced BLP. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found. Not even much insignificant coverage.--Michig (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable musician, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fastforward Software

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

Non-notable stub page about a small Mac software/shareware business which now appears to be defunct. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references provided to demonstrate notability. Miami33139 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable publisher and reseller of shareware. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. deletion arguments are based on a false cdoncept that there is a deadline. There isn't Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1950s in motorsport

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

Arbitrary division of time, no basis within the sport of sub-division in this manner. Incomplete bullet point in style. Articles appear to be abandoned, no work in five months, and these are articles which need a lot of work as they have been abandoned at a very basic stage. Falcadore (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep division by decade is common. Looks like it could be useful to view motorsport trends by the decade. --Bxj (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep division by decade is standard practice on wikipedia and in encyclopedias and summaries everywhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COMMONSENSE division of time, Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, this is the sort of time division used in the real world. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question how long do we keep stubs that no-one appears to want to work on, or bring up to a remotely satisfactory standard? Current levels of content do not reflect the title of the articles. Why keep the articles if they are not going to be advanced? --Falcadore (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Clearly, all four of these articles have been abandoned, and they wouldn't be missed if they were deleted. There's no organization and in each case it's five or six random items about different events lumped under the word "motorsport", with a few sources tossed in to make a good impression. I don't see it as much different than writing an article called "1950s in fashion" and throwing in a few sentences about poodle skirts and argyle sweaters. Moreover, I doubt that anyone will be inspired to work on this simply because they think it's a great title for an article (and it's not a great title). I think that the nomination failed as soon as it described a named decade as an arbitrary division of time, but that notwithstanding, there's no merit in any of these. I think that the author set out to write a comprehensive epic about the past sixty years of auto and motorcycle racing, and then realized that he had better things to do with his time. I think that that author concluded that this was something that seemed like a good idea at the time, but was, on further consideration, just a really bad idea. Maybe other people will agree with that as well. Mandsford 13:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CYCLE Kids

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

This article fails WP:CORP and could be speedied per G11 as pure advertisement, but speedy tag was removed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a small local organisation. Not very notable. No reliable sources exist. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. When I saw the title as the last one open, I was wondering how it didn't get snowball deleted, to my surprise, well, as suggested, there's no consensus to be found here. Courcelles (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly socks

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

This article should be deleted as it is only a repository for trivia about foul-smelling socks. The only useful information in this article is the second sentence in the introduction ("The aroma is a mixture of ammonia, fatty acids, and lactic acid.") and the five short sentences in the "Air contamination" section. This information can and should be merged to Foot odor, Sock, and/or Human foot#Sweaty feet. The remainder of the article is pure trivia; simply a list of various trivial situations in which smelly socks are vaguely connected. Here are some examples of information provided by this article:

Smelly socks smell like stale poppers, a recreational drug used during sex.
Smelly socks were used in commercials for British Knights sneakers.
Smelly socks are used in the making of powerful spells and charms.
Smelly socks are used to cure the common cold.
Smelly socks arouse people with foot fetishes.
Smelly socks smell like White Plume Grevillea flowers.

The list of trivia goes on and on. Just because sources can be found which mention "smelly socks" doesn't mean that we need an article devoted to the subject. I can also find plenty of sources for Brown socks and Knee socks and Crusty socks and Discolored socks, or any other adjective preceding the word "socks", but that doesn't mean we should have an article about brown socks including a list of films in which actors wore brown socks, and a list of flowers and animals reported to resemble brown socks, and a description of sexual fetishes involving brown socks, a list of all plane crash victims who were wearing brown socks, etc. etc. etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SnottyWong ^gossip 19:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But brown socks are not notable.--Milowent (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ironic. Neither are smelly socks. SnottyWong ^confess 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you've never smelled them, tenderfoot :-)--Milowent (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me put it this way: my smelly socks are not notable, but maybe yours are... ;) SnottyWong ^squeal 20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both of ours can be used to fight malaria, just one of the examples in the article, from real press coverage. On the surface it seems silly (I stumbled across it some time ago), but it really is a notable subject. On the less serious side:[2]--Milowent (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Foot odor. Please, let's just all agree on this. Foot odor is a valid encyclopedia topic, and the source of the stink on socks and shoes is the feet. As an aside, "Smell" is grammatically incorrect; "Stink" is better. Abductive (reasoning) 20:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite mistaken. The feet have no particular smell as they have no apocrine glands like the armpits. The smell arises from action of bacteria upon the socks soaked in sweat. The socks are there precisely to absorb the sweat and so it is they which are the source of the smell. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If feet have no particular smell, then why is there an article on Foot odor Are you suggesting that Foot odor should be merged into Smelly socks, since feet don't actually smell? SnottyWong ^converse 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but where do the bacteria come from? Also, the term "foot odor" is more widely used, and encompasses feet, socks and shoes. Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to foot odor. Sources or not, I am kinda frightened by the continued existence of this article... not sure whether it's because it uses the word "smelly" or because it uses a British spelling of the word odor... Mandsford 20:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a disturbing prejudice against British English in the comments here. Please see WP:ENGVAR which explains that "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. Within the English Wikipedia no variety is considered more correct than another.". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda sounds like you're arguing that the British spelling is more correct than any other. Either that or British socks are smellier than American ones. I'm pretty sure Mandsford was just trying to bring some levity to the discussion. Let's all take a deep breath. SnottyWong ^comment 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to foot odor - not an encyclopaedic topic, no significant coverage outside the encyclopaedic topic of foot odor. "Smelly" is not a suitable word to have in an encyclopaedic title. Claritas § 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which explains that this is begging the question and so an argument to avoid. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic is notable as demonstrated by the numerous sources about the highly distinctive odour of smelly socks. Proposing deletion is therefore as absurd as proposing that we deleted other articles about other sensations such as Violet, Umami or Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard. The nomination is self-contradictory in that it proposes that the article be deleted and then immediately counter-proposes that its content be merged. It can't make its mind up whether the material is useful or trivial and mostly just splutters in outrage. The nomination therefore fits WP:SK in being erroneous, harassing and vexatious. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your speedy keep rationale is what appears to be spluttering in outrage. My nomination doesn't contradict itself at all. I'm simply stating that there is a minimal amount of useful material in this article, which can and should be merged to the appropriate article (I didn't even find Foot odor when nominating the article, but now I see that this article is essentially a content fork of Foot odor). After having done that, the remaining majority of the article is utterly useless and should be deleted.

Also, your examples are perplexing. The best argument you can come up with is that the fundamental concepts regarding the human perception of color are equally as notable as smelly socks? SnottyWong ^chat 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to confuse the ordinary functions required for selective editing and merger with the special function required for complete deletion which is our purpose here. If material is to be kept, then our licensing terms commonly require retention of the edit history and deletion is then not appropriate. Per our deletion policy, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. See also our editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden, I've been here long enough to know the editing policies of Wikipedia. There's no need to quote them for me, or attempt to use them in a confusing manner to imply that this nomination is somehow invalid or improper. You and I both know that AfD's often result in merges and redirects which retain the edit history. If the community decides to merge and redirect, then that is a perfectly valid result. If the community decides that none of the information is worth keeping, then deletion is another valid result. That happens every day, and I know you're aware of that. In my opinion, 5% of this article is worth keeping, 95% is worth deleting. If the community decides to keep that 5% and put it somewhere else, then that's just fine and it doesn't invalidate this nomination in any way, nor does it qualify it for a speedy keep. I think it's clear that wikilawyering is not going to speedily close this nomination at this point. SnottyWong ^converse 22:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not one editor has supported your proposition that the article be deleted and so WP:SK is quite appropriate. It also seems relevant that you have recently been in conflict with me, per your complaints on my talk page, and so there seems to be a pointy element of hounding in this nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception of hounding is only your perception. The fact that this article was created by you is coincidental. If I was going around nominating all of the articles you've created, that would be hounding. As far as I'm aware, I have never nominated one other article that you have created (or even substantially contributed to), and I have nominated a lot of articles. It's true that none of the above !votes have agreed that the article should be deleted (which, incidentally, is clearly not grounds for a speedy keep, especially since only a few hours have elapsed since nomination), however they all have agreed that the article should be merged, which indicates to me that the consensus (so far) is that the article has a bit of useful info, but overall it doesn't require/deserve its own article. SnottyWong ^confess 22:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created nearly 200 articles and yet you nominate the one that I happen to be working on following our conflict. This does not seem to be a coincidence Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all of the articles you create are about similarly trivial subjects, then it is inevitable that I would nominate one of them. If you believe that I am hounding or stalking you, then feel free to start a discussion at WP:ANI. This is not the proper forum for a lengthy discussion about your bad faith assumptions. SnottyWong ^chat 23:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it trivial is evidence of ignorance and a hatred of knowledge. Do I really believe that? No. How'd you find the article Snotty?--Milowent (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I owe anyone an explanation, but in the interest of good faith, I'll be honest: The good Colonel and I were recently involved in a minor conflict on an unrelated article (which was resolved with a minimum of drama), and we are also involved in numerous discussions on multiple AfD's, as we are both frequent contributors to AfD discussions. I routinely check the contributions of editors with whom I am having a lot of interaction, to see if they have made any updates to the AfD's or articles that we have been discussing. I checked Colonel Warden's contributions for this very reason, and to check if he had added anything to the complaint thread I started on his talk page regarding the above-mentioned minor conflict (because I don't have his talk page and other relevant pages on my watchlist). While briefly perusing his contributions page (as I have done with many other editors), I came across an edit on Smelly socks, and the title of the article was so ludicrous that I was compelled to look at the article to see if it was a hoax. Upon reading the article and looking at sources, I nominated the article for deletion (using Twinkle), and up until that point I didn't even realize that Colonel Warden was the original creator of the article until the Twinkle window said "Notifying original contributor: Colonel Warden".

I assure you that, while I did find this article on his contributions page, there is no stalking or hounding going on here, and I truly had no idea that Colonel Warden was the original contributor to this article until after the nomination was completed. If I had known, it probably wouldn't have stopped me from nominating it anyway. This is not a frivolous nomination made with the intention to piss someone off. The article is clearly very questionable, and had anyone else nominated it there would be no question of the validity of the nomination. Even if this article doesn't end up getting merged or deleted, it is still clearly an appropriate nomination of a debatably trivial subject.

Now, can we actually discuss the article as opposed to the conditions under which it was nominated? SnottyWong ^converse 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing the air, if you will. The merits only here on out!--Milowent (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colonel Warden has been a major contributor to this article. --Bxj (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no COI as I've had my socks checked and an independent nose has confirmed that they are not smelly. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought a merge' to subsections of sock and foot odour were best. I'm not convinced it is a search term on its own. Can we get some data on wiki search terms? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a large industry dedicated to smelly socks. I added some references and information to the article. Smelly socks are in the news quite often, there plenty of coverage out there. Dream Focus 02:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The way these sources are cobbled together is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS, a policy. Abductive (reasoning) 02:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia synthesis requires that a new position be synthesized that is not in the original material. Adding information from diverse sources into an article is just called research. If we didn't synthesize an article from facts here and there we wouldn't be creating an encyclopedia, we would be cutting and pasting from other encyclopedias. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I list a news mention of a product to eliminate smelling socks, showing that there is an industry for that. Other odor eater products could easily be found as well. I link to the special locker they use to store the smelly socks of prisoners in one area. I link to news articles about using smelly socks to keep deer away. Of an actor's smelly socks, as reported in the news article linked to, being sold. I started a popular culture section to list examples of smelly socks in the media, it a common enough comedy theme. Which bit are you referring to a synthesis violation? Dream Focus 03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have added even more trivia to this article. And now we've added the tell-tale In Popular Culture section which infects almost all trivial articles. I think your edits actually give more weight to a delete/merge argument. SnottyWong ^yak 03:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, odor eaters are for smelly shoes, not socks. SnottyWong ^express 03:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean the name brand Odor Eater, but instead anything that ate/destroyed the odor. And there are enough valid news articles about "smelly socks" to warrant an article. Hopefully people are mature enough not to try to delete something simply because they don't want one section of it. Of course many seem to be trying to delete this simply because they don't like the topic of smelly socks. The topic receives ample coverage, so there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it. Dream Focus 03:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with you that this is a real, interesting and important subject. But the subject is called "foot odor" more than anything else. Abductive (reasoning) 04:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:POPCULTURE thing you link to is an essay, written by people expressing their opinions on something they don't like. It has no bearing on anything. Dream Focus 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it criticises something you love and is therefore evil, irrelevant and wrong. Reyk _YO! 03:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the difference between essays, guidelines, and policy? Anyone can write an essay, saying whatever they feel like, and someone can write one that says the opposite. If enough people support something, it becomes a guideline. Anyway, its a real thing, getting plenty of coverage to prove that. That's all that matters. Dream Focus 00:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Foot odor. As it stands, this article is disjointed, rambling trivia. Reyk _YO! 03:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^verbalize 05:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by User:Dream Focus in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete and merge any relevant content to foot odor. Keeping this article would open the door to all varieties of "smelly" clothing. Gobonobo ^T ^C 05:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But only if they have received significant coverage in independent sources.--Milowent (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content to foot odor. This article seems to be an indiscriminate collection of trivia related to the subject rather than an encyclopedia article. –Grondemar 05:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge and relevant content to foot odor. Not only is the article trivial and silly, but this discussion is trivial and silly as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.204.187.222 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, foot odor is related, but not identical. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a secondary source that explicitly states this? Abductive (reasoning) 01:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per R., not identical. Many sources speak of sock odor as a distinct entity and don't always mention feet. (Prosthetic users have the problem too [3]).A couple other things that could be added to the article: the popular Type 2 diabetes med metformin has this smell and some people stop taking it [4]; dogs love smelly socks as most of us with dogs know, and self-medicate their separation anxiety with them [5], they're used in training [6], [7]. Then you have the slew of results that comes up in Google scholar for sock odor study [8]. Useful as mosquito bait [9] Some papers evaluate the effectiveness of the sock material additives. For instance, Nanosilver-impregnated socks, while apparently well-received for this purpose, may have deleterious environmental effects. [10], page 5. But please change the name, it made me laugh in an un-encylopedic fashion. Novickas (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete why is this article here, its the shortest most unproffessional article I've ever seen, delete or merge it with foot odour--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far more proffessional than the loads of footballer articles i've been improving lately! Why is everyone racist against smelly socks!--Milowent (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge redundant to foot odor. Merge helps build consensus since even the delete comments mention merge as a reasonable outcome. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is ridiculous, and not a valid topic for an encyclopaedia (which is the point here). Per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE this should be deleted and redirected to foot odour. This is trivial and pathetic. Verbal chat 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it not "valid"? Why does one draw a value judgment against smelly socks? Do only children recognize their intriguing nature?[11] The articles cited show otherwise.--Milowent (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "ridicolous" is claiming WP:NOTE is a valid deletion argument in an article that has multiple reliable sources about its topic, and therefore passes WP:GNG without any problem. Your comment amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:UNENCYC, apparently.--Cyclopia ^talk 16:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Dethlock99's comment below. There are no WP:RS that show this concept meets WP:NOTE, just a lot of stuff and nonsense dressed to make it look notable. There is no "I don't like it" here, just an inherently stupid article which deserves deletion. Verbal chat 12:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Merge : Funny article name, but it is indeed well reliably sourced (no WP:GNG concerns at all) and much better than I could imagine given the topic. I'd say a good merge with Foot odor could be in the long term the best option, but in the meantime the article has no reasons to be deleted. About the trivia concern, it simply seems a case of the nominator not liking some of the article content. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A lot of this is true, however, 'Smelly socks' is not really a very good entry for an encyclopedia. The information belongs somewhere else. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per several other user comments. VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently reliably sourced such that any discussion of merging really falls into a normal editorial process. An argument that material is used in a SYNTH/OR manner is a de facto admission that there is enough material with which to write an article. As you can see by the above discussions, there's nuanced arguments here--not an AfD discussion, really, more like an RfC discussion. Merge, kept, edited... those are all variants on a "keep" outcome. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in which nobody has provided a source that elevates "smelly socks" above the more common "foot odor". A discussion where the term "foot odor" gets Google Books snippits such as "Foot odor is actually a combination of odors emanating from your shoe, foot, and sock," says Herbert Lapidus, Ph.D., ... And Dr. Lapidus knows his foot odor..." or "Judging by the number of patients I have who complain about their own foot odor, and if my patients can be considered a cross section of North ...", and "smelly socks" gets hits such as "Smelly Socks Toddler-style sachets can be made from infant socks." A discussion in which the members of the Article Rescue Squadron have all not-voted the same way. Abductive (reasoning) 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, I, a card-carrying ARS member, have not voted to keep. But there are ENTIRE BOOKS dedicated to this subject![12].--Milowent (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a children's book entitled Stinky Smelly Feet: A Love Story. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you actually haven't !voted at all, you've just made a series of silly comments. :P SnottyWong ^express 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources are more WP:BOMBARD and WP:MASK than WP:RS. Dethlock99 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOMBARD and WP:MASK are personal essays and you don't even get them right. WP:BOMBARD is about repetitious sources saying the same thing which is not what we have here. WP:MASK is about phoney sources but, again, that's not what we have here. It better describes your !vote - an attempt to dress up a personal opinion by pretending that you're citing policy when all you have is fluff. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I thought his reference to WP:MASK in particular was quite relevant. SnottyWong ^comment 22:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Bombardment is the placement of a large number of references in an article in hopes that this will prevent it from ever getting deleted." and "Or, the sources may not directly address the subject of the article, but instead give trivial details about it. An article could be interpreted as synthesis, a form of original research." Both from WP:BOMBARD That is why I think it is relevant. Dethlock99 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why"." and "Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading. Some may also consider it insulting, as it essentially suggests that their opinion (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay" is not one of them." from WP:ONLYESSAY Dethlock99 (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE which explains that it is not enough to point to some WP: canned argument but you have to explain how this is applicable. In the case of WP:BOMBARD, for example, one could use this in a hand-waving way to attack any article which happens to have a lots of sources, as if having lots of sources were a bad thing - obvious nonsense. In the case of this article, I constructed it carefully, making sure that everything had a source. Some sources are better than others but they all seem reliable and that's good enough for WP:V. You have quite failed to provide any specifics which would provide a cogent argument for dismissing all of these sources when a good number of them are quite clearly about the main topic. It seems that, because you can't attack the article for being unsourced, you attack it for having too many sources - a rhetorical Catch-22 or Morton's Fork which, being based upon a little used essay, just seems to be clutching at straws. Shall I now write a little essay to summarise these thoughts and stick a WP:CLUTCH tag on it to make it seem more impressive? This seems likely to be wasted effort because it will cut little ice with the closing admin who is usually looking for arguments based upon policy.Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete is WP:GNG because of WP:BOMBARD, WP:MASK, and WP:RS. I stated above the exact portion that I thought was relevant when you questioned the relevance of the essays. I will make sure I include more explanation in my initial response to AFDs. I thought the nominator discussed the trivia adequately and my response was meant accentuate his position by pointing to a policy and explanations. Sources pointing to a collection of trivia used for notability and the adding of such sources once an article is up for AFD are the issues from essays. The policies are a combination of WP:RS and WP:GNG. I could not find a source that I thought established WP:NOTABILITY. What two do you think establish notability the best? All I could find were sources that are tangential or trivial mentions. I am sorry for not making my argument more clear initially. Your argument above, however, seems to be a Straw man. That is a fallacy that substitutes a similar yet weaker argument for the original. My argument is based on policy and supported by essays, not based on essays alone. Dethlock99 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - from a card-carring ARS member. It is certainly odd, but that was never a reason to delete, nor to keep. "Your mother sells smelly socks in hell!" goes the line from the Saturday Night Live parody of The Exorcist. There is plenty of text and reliable sources, but also a bit of synthesis, rather than OR. I am sure that the article can be expanded even more. So it comes down to community consensus about whether we want to have an article on ~~Eric Ely~~ smelly socks. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ely would have been much more notable if he had smelly socks like this [13] --Milowent (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classic John Candy. SnottyWong ^confess 21:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Foot odor, or Delete. This is not an article so much as a list of trivia about the smell of socks; as shown by the fact that most of the references are not actually about 'smelly socks', but only mention them in passing. I'm not convinced this is a reasonable basis for an encyclopaedic article. Robofish (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well written, well researched and provides a wealth of valuable insight into this important social phenomena.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was a nice little joke but it's had its moment. Ultimately this is pure trivia and the subject is covered properly at Foot odor. A trout to CW for carrying on the joke too far. I42 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any usable content to Foot odor, since the smell of the sock is not independent of the foot odor. First Light (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to foot odor, perhaps creating an independent section about "smelly socks" (probably with a better title). Though I wouldn't mind if we kept it and added it to the list of weird articles. Bramble claw x 17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wash or its equivalent WP action, delete. Topic is totally unworthy of an article of its own, and cannot become anything other than a list of trivial mentions that belong elsewhere, not on wikipedia. Start a "dirty laundry" wiki on Wikia. Horologium (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely adding an adjective to a notable subject should not yield a new article. Lets avoid one sock two sock red sock blue sock and just make them all sub headings of sock where they belong. Bonewah (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went to look at the article all prepared to toss it out, but to my surprise it is a well composed and informative article, well documented with Reliable Sources. That's what it's supposed to be about here - right? --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being an odd topic or article is not reason for deletion. It currently appears to satisfy our GNG handily, so no notability concerns. Sure, maybe it's the best article right now, but this encyclopedia isn't finished. If someone doesn't like how the article reads, they're more than welcome to edit it themselves. Buddy431 (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written article on cultural topic which used to frequently feature in children's entertainment. Easily notable per the existence of dedicated sources specifically about the subject. No Synth issues IMO as there dont seem to be any novel synthetic conclusions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article could use a bit of a cleansing, but that's no reason to throw it out.--Milowent (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bonewah, adding an adjective doesn't make it deserve a new article. Dare I say Smelly socks is a sock of sock. My76 Strat 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is the last AfD left open from July 7 noms. Don't worry admin core, a no consensus close will not destroy the project. I've found from the BLP Rescue Project that we have many truly unsourced (though not contentious) BLPs out there that need our help more than this needs deletion.--Milowent (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph's World

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

Delete Non notable band. No sources to prove notability. Absolutley no reason for this band to have an article OttomanJackson 01:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If deleted, Ralph's World Rocks which redirects there will need to be deleted, as well. OttomanJackson 01:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep as per WP:BANDs 8th criterium: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to establish notability. Pyrrhus16 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know some people are offended when it's suggested that they should have followed WP:BEFORE and looked for sources themselves, but the first page from the Google News archive includes articles from Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, New York Post, The Plain Dealer, Los Angeles Times, NPR.--Michig (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator said "no sources to prove notability" which is true if you only read the article as it stands now. It turns out there is a reason for the act to have an article given the coverage found by Michig. (Yes, some of the mentions are fleeting and probably not significant, but others pass the test.) The article needs expansion. not deletion, and WP:BEFORE was not nearly followed here. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. And whoever said this would be chore to wade through was right. However, the case does appear to have been made that Kim does pass WP:BIO, however closely, through the additional sources that have been found. Clearly, though, a no consensus close means that the article may be subject to renomination in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kenneth K. Kim

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

I declined the speedy deletion of this page. It is a pretty borderline case in regards to spam, but the main issue in my mind is notability. While the subject is clearly a successful member of their field, I can't see much evidence that they have been covered by any reliable sources. At this point I would vote be delete Neutral pending review of Korean language sources Keep Dr. Kim has been the subject of non trivial coverage in a variety of reliable sources and meets WP:N. -- Leivick (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: The page is now at Kenneth K. Kim (moved subsequent to the reverted NAC). Fences&Windows 01:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Kim has had numerous articles in the Korean newspapers done on him...

Korean Daily News, May 20, 2010

there were two other ones i dont know what they are i'll call my parents to find out but he's seriously great he's been operating on older patients for free to help them with a condition called ptosis which is droopiness or something in the eyes and is very common among us asians hes been doing really great things and i wanted more positive korean american role models please please don't get rid of his article its really important to me and my family to have more people like him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.89.126 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above user states on her talk page "i am working in the same school organization that is trying to make more pages for role models from korean american descent to help our community create more positive role models." Such an attitude may not be consistent with the principles of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The above user is an anonymous IP editor who did not write the original article, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by suggesting... whatever it is that you're suggesting. I'm not sure I understand what "attitude" you are referring to -- trying to create articles about prominent Korean-Americans doesn't exactly seem in violation of Wikipedia cornerstones, no. Perhaps you could explain or elaborate how you think this person who is attempting to supply sourcing for the article is violating Wikipedia principles. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please. If you look up the IP's contrib record and compare it with that of User:People bios, it is pretty obvious that they are the same person. We can file an SPI report if you like, to make sure. Nsk92 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this edit[14] confirms conclusively that they are the same person. Nsk92 (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I think this thing just got really confused. The above comments from the IP Address were from my roommate. She didn't vote, she doesn't know how to do anything on html (which is why i think she was asking for help in putting up the sources), and she was a little over excited about Dr. Kim's article, which I had shown to her before I left for work that day. She bugged me all day about this Afd, but if you noticed, she didn't even vote. she isn't really sure about how to do these things, and as far as i know, she hasn't been back on since. i already told her to stay off because she didn't understand the politics of wikipedia and she's wayyyyy too emotional right now to get involved in any debate regarding this topic or anything similar. i told her she's just make things worse so she's been trying to stay off.People bios (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see nothing conclusively confirmed in that diff (in fact it jives perfectly well with things People bios has said to me and to others during the course of this conversation), and having interacted with both of these editors, I might (jokingly) suggest that People bios either consider a career in acting or an appointment with a shrink specializing in multiple-personality disorder if they are in fact the same person, because it feels an awful lot like dealing with two completely different people. Either way, even assuming the worst possible faith, as you do, has anything improper actually been attempted here? There's no votestacking taking place here -- only an attempt to supply a reliable source. Whether the source is reliable or not is entirely unrelated to whether or not the IP and People bios are the same person. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, let's see. Here is the IP casting a "keep" !vote[15] and here is People bios signing that !vote[16]. I'd say that is pretty conclusive. Nsk92 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one vote. One account is allowed one vote. And his "roommates" explanation above has been used consistently. and, either way, again, and most importantly: where is any evidence of inappropriate abuse of multiple accounts? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak Keep This took a bit of a careful review of the cited references, which at first glance might appear to be the type of thing that grants notability, but on review doesn't even provide much by way of verifiable information about Dr. Kim. The sources provide coverage of procedures that Dr. Kim uses and the clinic with which he is apparently associated, but no actual coverage of Dr. Kim himself. The only thing I can see that might help here is this published article but, again, this doesn't actually represent coverage of Dr. Kim, merely evidence that Dr. Kim is a published man in his field. Changing my vote to Weak Keep based on the new Korean sources and cab's translation, interpretation and explanation (which is greatly appreciated). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to argue for a keep based on newspaper coverage, which basically means using the WP:BIO standard, a lot more than a few such articles would have to be produced, typically a few dozen at least, depending on the depth of the coverage. That does not appear to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N is intentionally vague on this point ("multiple"), but "a few dozen" is far above the standard typically required at AfD. cab (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it is not, I have participated in enough AfDs to know that. The depth of coverage is, of course, relevant, but a few newsstories are almost never considered sufficient to pass WP:BIO and generally a substantial number of such stories are required. That is how WP:BIO has been typically applied. There are exceptions, of course, e.g. if someone dies at there are several obituaries in major newspapers, something at the level of New York Times or Washington Post, that would be sufficient. Sometimes even a single source would suffice, e.g. a published biography book. But for the ordinary run-of-the-mill newscoverage a few newsstories are by far not sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is interesting -- I have participated in a huge number of AfDs myself, and this "a few dozen" standard would have changed the outcome of a great many of them. Needless to say, I disagree. I am a bit incredulous that anyone has participated in an AfD wherein someone took the time to count up 36 individual newspaper articles before asserting that they conferred notability on the subject -- that would be a fairly outstanding amount of effort, based on the typically, erm, "casual" amount of effort I normally see applied at these discussions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, please, give me a break. I routinely use googlenews to check how many hits come up for a particular name. It does not mean that I read carefully every single hit, but I usually do scan through the results of the googlenews search to see what kinds of hits I get, if there are too many false positives, etc. I am sure that lots of others do to. That's why we even have an automatic link to GoogleNews in AfD pages, for Pete's sake. If I ever see something with a result in single digits, that is automatically a red flag. Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please calm down. I am not attacking you. I use GNews just as anyone uses GNews in this context. Verifying that there are 36 different newspaper articles devoted to a subject would require a great deal more than a GNews "scan." You'd have to read the articles, to verify that they aren't reposts, duplicates, etc. That is all I'm saying. I am not calling you a liar (as you say in your rather uncalled for post on my talk page). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no no no he has been covered there are many articles on him but they are all in KOREAN in the KOREAN NEWS PAPERS but the citations for Wikipedia are all the same and based on what I've been reading they are still considered citable and reliable sources so once I get my PARENTS to give me their NAME and DATES i will post them here but can someone else PLEASE update his page i dont know how to do this it is very very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.89.126 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you can post 1 or 2 of these articles on him here, I will very happily change my vote to Keep, and I can also help out by updating the article with the article sources. Don't worry -- there's no immense rush or reason to be upset. These AfD discussions stay open for at a minimum seven days so you have at least a week to find the articles. Again, if you can show that there are articles that cover Dr. Kim I will happily, immediately change my vote to Keep. I saw your bit about wanting to get more coverage of prominent, successful Korean-Americans on your talk page and I have a lot of respect for that type of endeavor on Wikipedia.
By the way, Korean language sources are just as good as English language ones. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi i found the articles...

"the korea herald: daily business"

june 16, 2009

"beverly hills yuh suhng deul gam tan"

i.e., beverly hills females impressed

--about how dr kim's fat grafting, eye, nose, breast, dark circle, and wrinkle correction procedures are literally the best

the korea daily

thursday, may 20, 2010

"chuh jihn noon soo sool moo lyoh sahng dahb bahd eu sae yoh

i.e., get a free consultation on whether or not you have ptosis

--about correcting upper eyelid ptosis (i.e., droopy/aging eyelid). New techniques are now used to correct this condition (i.e., during upper eyelid blepharoplasty), which are used by dr. kim since he combines his training from both korea and america to correct ptosis more effectively than other doctors. He uses a technique that allows him to treat the underlying tissue.

--"many people are going to see dr kim" now because he offers this special surgery.

---> i'm trying to get more information on the matter. i know there was at least one more but we cant find it once i find it we'll post it right away thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.89.126 (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Clearly spam. The article had a number of references to pages and articles not related to the article subject. Those have been removed. They certainly did not support notability nor do the remaining. When I see examples of articles quotes to be added such as ""many people are going to see dr kim", "get a free consultation", and "beverly hills females impressed", I have to seriously question if the articles to be added meet WP:RS. ttonyb (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am very sorry about all the confusion regarding this article. I am also sorry that this was such a poor first article. I tried editing it over and over yesterday, but I (clearly) didn't do a very good job since I didn't know how to do this very well since this was my first Wikipedia article. I tried to do a trial version, but it was still really confusing when it came down to citing everything correctly.

I am working on updating the information to try and make it more accurate, but please do not delete this article. It is one of many that I am trying to do to gain awareness when it comes to important contributions made by Korean Americans to help our community establish better, more positive role models. I took an interest in Dr. Kim's work when his most recent article came out (the May 20, 2010 one on ptosis) because he was really doing something that may seem minute and insignificant to many people, but to the Korean community, it really is a big deal. I don't know if anyone knows this, but plastic surgery is a VERY big deal in the Korean American community.

I hope you don't mind Ttonyb1, but I deleted your COI tag. I am not Dr. Kim, I am not paid by Dr. Kim, and I am not a friend of Dr. Kim's. I do not fall under any of the criteria based on the restrictions set forth in the COI tag. The only possible "conflict of interest" would be that I am Korean American, and that he is also Korean American, so if that means that there is some conflict of interest there, then that would also be saying that since I am human, then I am unable to write articles about another human, since we are both human, and there are not enough degrees of separation between us to make it so that my views on this human would not be biased or skewed in some way. I am merely interested in him, along with other members in the Korean American community who have been making significant contributions that I wanted the world to know about. Also, if I knew him, then this article would have been much easier to write, since I would have had all the resources BEFOREHAND rather than having to spend TWO days hunting them down, calling everyone I knew to try and find these articles that were written on him and trying to differentiate between the HUNDREDS of Kenneth Kim's that roam the earth...

Anyways, I have done my best to try and back everything with a reliable source, although I am sure it will still fall under scrutiny. To help with translation, I suggest using Babel Fish because it allows you to take the source I used and then cut, copy, and paste it into the box and you will get a very botched version of what the Korean version says. Please do bear in mind though that plastic surgery, although frivolous in many regards, is VERY important in the Korean community, so having an article like this is really important NOT FOR DR KIM'S PRACTICE but for the sake of many of those people who unknowingly go to some very bad surgeons. I have three friends already who have had the procedure and came out with BOTCHED eyes and needed to get their lids redone. As sad as it is, it's not even by choice all the time. One of my friends had her mother drag her in there when she was sleeping and she woke up to find herself at a plastic surgeon's office...

Also, my apologies to the entire Wikipedia community for writing such a poor, poorly sourced first article. I was trying to learn HTML while at the same time trying to find sources on Dr. Kim while also trying to discern between the hundreds upon HUNDREDS of different Kenneth Kim's out there (I am really starting to resent the lack of creativity when it comes to Korean people and their names...)

I never knew that it was so difficult to write a Wikipedia article, but my respect for Wikipedia (and its community) has literally TRIPLED (if not more) through this experience. Very reliable source. People bios (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two sources from Koreantown Daily have been added to the article. The articles are [Interview] Kenneth Kim, plastic surgeon (Google Translate) and More pond Laser & Medi Spa, a plastic surgeon services performed (Google Translate). I'm not convinced that these are neutral reliable sources so I have asked CaliforniaAliBaba (talk · contribs) and Ugen64 (talk · contribs), two editors who speak Korean, to review the sources. Cunard (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also added the Yahoo article, which was dead at first because I cut and copy/pasted the URL incorrectly. Please do have them review that one too. I also have a printed article that is not online from the korea daily, but I don't know how to get that one verified. I have a digital/scanned copy of it, but it is not online. People bios (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo article (Google Translate), a reprint of an article from koreaheraldbiz.com, may be an acceptable source but after using Google Translate to review it, I am getting the feeling that the article is promotional and contains only passing mentions of the subject. I may be wrong though, so hopefully CaliforniaAliBaba and Ugen64 can shed some light on this.
Remember, reliable sources that establish notability are those that are neutral, third-party sources that have received fact-checking/verification from reliable publications. The newspaper articles you provided, if they are neutral, nontrivial, and independent of the subject, should be enough to establish that Kenneth K. Kim passes Wikipedia:Notability (people).
For the print sources: Scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing site. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"'Comment"' Hi, Yes I started my own Flickr account just for this! I am about 1/5 of the way there...

Here is the link "[[17]]" to the Flickr photo of the ad. Thank you Cunard! And Daniel Leivick for changing to neutral. (I realize you didn't do this for me but the cause, but I'll take it anyway :) !) — Preceding unsigned comment added by People bios (talk • contribs)

Weak keep Cunard asked me to comment here. Apparently everyone else who speaks Korean better than me is unavailable. Basically: there's a sufficient amount of coverage, it supports the statements that have been added to the article, but the quality of the coverage itself varies.

One relevant policy might be WP:LOCAL (not to mention the failed Wikipedia:Notability (local interests). All of the newspapers where Dr. Kim is covered are the Los Angeles/California/North America editions of South Korean newspapers (of varying levels of reliability). What these guys do is take the content from their parent newspapers, and bundle it up with a few more articles written by local reporters on local subjects. These local reporters are typically not the parent newspaper's foreign correspondents (e.g. high-achieving professional reporters stationed in DC to report on U.S. politics for the benefit of readers in South Korea); rather, they're immigrants who live in the U.S. for some other reason and ended up as reporters (often freelance/part time).

The first two articles: The Koreatown Daily [18] are apparently the U.S. edition of Sports Seoul ([19]; in S. Korea, it's basically seen as a local rag, a couple of steps up from a tabloid, complete with the Korean equivalent of Page Three girls. Dunno about their U.S. edition.). The first article is an interview which goes into various details about his background; the second one is focused on his medical practice and what services they offer to patients.
The third article, by Allen Choi: Korea Daily is the U.S. edition of JoongAng Ilbo (a well-regarded national newspaper in S. Korea). ~~Their website [20] has no record of an article "처진 눈수술 무료상담 받으세요" ("Free consultation about surgery for drooping eyelids").~~ People bios posted the scan above. The article consists of one paragraph lead, one paragraph discussing the procedure offered, one paragraph about Dr. Kim and his background, a quote from him, a discussion of Medicare issues with the surgery, and his contact info.
The fourth article (on Yahoo): It's from the U.S. edition of The Korea Herald (another national newspaper in S. Korea). This is the "Beverly Hills Women Impressed" article mentioned above.
From a Google News search in Korean (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, there seem to also be some articles in the U.S. edition of the Hankook Ilbo too. Is [21] the same guy? (It discusses the election of a 1.5-generation Korean American named Kenneth Kim as president of the Korean American Medical Association of Southern California in 2007). What's a "가정주치 전문의"? The Korean American way of saying "general practitioner"? I found another article in the same newspaper [22] about how he is offering free procedures to senior citizens (e.g. cleft palate surgery).

Hope that helps. Cheers, cab (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ~ Thank you very much CaliforniaAliBaba, I really appreciate this. I am trying my best to figure this out, but it is really difficult. The last one you found is not him, but I am definitely trying to find more information. I just don't know where to go and it's really hard because Korean people are so unimaginative when it comes to naming their kids...

I am going to see what else I can find. I really appreciate all this help I never thought this would turn into a lifelong endeavor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by People bios (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for editing CaliforniaAliBaba. I am really trying to find more articles on Dr. Kenneth K. Kim. I am trying to think of what else I can do. I have also been reading up more on the policies of reliable sources...

At this point, I think it's best not to worry about the exact details of the policy too much. The most important thing is to have secondary sources (e.g. articles in newspapers, rather than articles published by Dr. Kim). There's a secondary (and quite stringent) criteria WP:PROF which is used to assess people who publish in scholarly journals, but the primary criterion (WP:N) of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" overrides that anyway. This discussion will remain open for another week. Other people will come by and read the discussion and express their opinions based on the new information that has been added. The people who commented earlier may not be following this discussion closely and haven't checked back to see all the later developments. Regards, cab (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans has been notified of this discussion. cab (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question (mainly for the people coming here from the Academics delsort list): how common is it for an unaffiliated author to be published in academic journals? In some fields (e.g. Physics) it's rather rare; in others it's perfectly normal. No idea how this works in the medical field. cab (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you cab. I tried to find the Korean American page to post the article up for review to get more comments on it, but I couldn't find it and then I got lost and forgot what I was trying to do... I just want to know how to do this right now, and how to make it better at this point. I really appreciate all that you've been doing for this. I still think there might be more articles on Dr. Kim, but it is really difficult because I don't really understand scientific language very well, and for some reason, there seem to be an unusually high number of Korean American men named Ken, Kenneth, Kenneth K. and Kenneth K. Kim who like to go into medicine, science, and Biology or Molecular and Cell Biology. I feel like I am trying to find a needle in a haystack.People bios (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to make a claim for his notability as a researcher, so this entry is probably best judged by WP:ACADEMIC standards. With a common name like that, searching various databases (GoogleScholar and the like) is difficult, but, to the extent I have been able to check, his work has not been significantly cited. His own website[23] does not list any particularly significant academic awards or honors. The most interesting one listed there is being a "a Rhodes Scholar nominee", but being a nominee, whatever that means, does not really cut it. Not much else here to indicate passing either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in Google scholar, books, news. Notability not remotely achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

All of his articles were in Korean. Xxanthippe, Nsk92...did you try typing his name in korean? People bios (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, no, I did not. However, medicine is very much an international field and important work would have been significantly cited in English as well. Nsk92 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nsk92, I was just wondering, to what extent were you able to look him up? Also, I went to his website too, and it doesn't seem to be particularly finished. Many pages are still "under construction", and it doesn't mention any of his other articles. I would also appreciate it if you could please be more specific when it comes to a "particularly significant academic award or honor". What exactly constitutes this? The funny thing is, I major in History. People bios (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - There is no "what exactly" about such things, but, for example, I mean some kinds of awards by scholarly or scientific societies, elected or honorary memberships in such societies, honorary degrees, etc. Or even something smaller, such as delivering some named lectures/named lecture series at a university. I am fairly sure that if he had such awards, they would have been mentioned at his website. Nsk92 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding citations of his papers, I looked at the 3 papers listed in the article where he is given as the first author, and run them through GoogleScholar. The citation hits that came back for these papers were 6[24], 7[25] and 1[26]. These are very low numbers. Nsk92 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And by all of his articles being in Korean, I meant the ones that were written about him as a person and as a plastic surgeon. I should have maybe put philanthropist and surgeon, since he's been doing a lot of surgeries to help people. There were two of him as offering surgeries for free to older patients who needed them for medical reasons...— Preceding unsigned comment added by People bios (talk • contribs)
- To be honest, I just barely heard about that last article, about Dr. Kim offering free cleft palate surgery. The one before that, about dr. kim offering free ptosis consultation and operating on so many patients for free, was something i heard about. i really wish people found this sort of thing more admirable. so many other people have been kept around on here for accomplishing such silly things...

dr. kim has accomplished so much and is such a great model...but it doesn't seem to matter as much as just being a good person...

but i really think these people are the ones that needed to be recognized. not because of their ethnicity. i tried thinking of other korean american people i wanted to include here, but i couldn't think of any. i actually thought of another guy, jaeson ma, who i thought might be significant enough to make it, but even that is questionable so i didn't really try and push it... i just realized that dr. kim was really a good person and it seems like he's not about self promotion at all. i think he deserves to be recognized though. The more i hear and read about him, the more i think he deserves something like this. you just don't see people like that anymore.... People bios (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW~The picture was my property. I did not take it off Dr. Kim's page. I got it from my mother who got it from her work. I have the right to use the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by People bios (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regardless of where you got it, it is property of the doctor and as such is a copyright violation if it is included in the Wikipedia article. Please do not add it back to the article ttonyb (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if I write a letter to the doctor asking for his permission to use it, then may I use it? I read that this would be okay based on Copyright Policies set forth on Wikipedia.People bios (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and if I get his approval to use it, of course, for this article. I wont write or ask though until this whole thing gets cleared up, for obvious reasons. I just need to know if this would be okay or if it would be bad for me to do because of conflict of interest. People bios (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what are the rules if my mom has a picture that she took with her own camera? I am not asking out of interest for this article, but for subsequent articles. Would that also be considered a copyright issue? or would it be acceptable under those terms?People bios (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am very big on making things look "pretty", and I think that the picture makes his site look quite "pretty". Therefore, I would really appreciate it if you could please tell me how I may keep the picture on his page.People bios (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi~I have a question...Nsk92 (talk) said that "For sources like newspaper articles, one typically needs quite a few sources to prove notability, certainly something in double digits." I don't remember reading about this anywhere, and I was wondering where this was stated exactly in Wikipedia's policies. Additionally, I was wondering exactly what that number was, in terms of double digits. Does this mean that if there are 10, then the article is considered worth keeping, but if there are 9, then it is not? I seem to be getting different answers on this, which is making it really confusing. I am trying to find an answer, not trying to throw around accusatory remarks or question anybody. I am just trying to improve myself as an editor.People bios (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Consequent to my taking part in this AfD debate a personal attack of an odious nature [27] has been made against me by People bios. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I agree, that was pretty nasty and unacceptable. I have left a warning at User talk: People bios but I am half of the mind to make a report at WP:AN/I already... Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize for any and all accusatory claims made against Xxanthippe (talk). They were wrong of me and I am truly sorry. Please excuse/forgive my poor conduct/behavior. I really have a lot of respect for all members of the Wiki community because I think these discussions make Wikipedia a reliable resource. I have decided to stay off this discussion from now on because it occurred to me that I am being conflicted by my emotions, so I am not going to include myself in this discussion anymore. I realized my time would be better spent trying to work on my editing.People bios (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After issuing the above apology People bios posted the following comment [28] on the talk page of Cunard: "I just casually throw around my insults, personal attacks, and automated letters of complaints without discretion, and then I ask for forgiveness later." Xxanthippe (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Oh dear, now I feel like we are digressing from the issue at hand. Xxanthippe (talk), I am not quite sure how to take this comment you left on my talk page (and here). On the one hand, I am not sure if it is meant to be a joke, because the comment I left on Cunard's page that you are citing here was obviously said in jest (I was referring to his automated letter of complaint if you were paying attention to the thread). In context, it was clear to Cunard that I was not being serious and I did not mean offense. The whole thread of comments that were being left back and forth between us make that apparent, so I don't know how relevant your point can be here (if it is serious) since it is taken out of context and I do not know how you could misconstrue that. On the other hand, if you really think that it was said in sincerity, then as I mentioned before, I am very sorry about the personal attack I made against you, and I hope you will understand that I am not trying to make enemies on Wikipedia. I am just trying to edit and contribute to it. Also, I am not sure now if this issue has just become a personal vendetta for you against me, rather than it being about the issue at hand.People bios (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thread from which you saw this comment is full of banter. I interpret People bios' comment as a joke, not a reflection of her style of editing. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CaliforniaAliBaba. The sources presented in this AfD demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria : A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The two articles from the Korean Daily and the article by Allan Choi in the Korean Daily (the U.S. edition of JoongAng Ilbo) provide nontrivial coverage of Kenneth K. Kim. Add these to this article from The Korea Times and the other sources at (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and notability is solidly established.
I acknowledge that Kim doesn't pass WP:PROF; however, the depth and breadth of coverage he has received in several Korean newspapers demonstrate that he has had a significant impact on his community—enough, in my opinion, to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. This well-researched, carefully-crafted article by Peoples bio will help Wikipedia counter systemic bias on a non-English topic where sources are difficult to locate. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having 3-4 newspaper articles covering a person is much less than is traditionally expected for satisfying WP:BIO. I would ordinarily want to see something in significant double-digits, which does not appear to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says,

“

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

* If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

”

WP:BIO does not require a person to have newspaper articles in the double digits. The guideline requires "multiple independent sources" that provide nontrivial coverage about the subject. Because Kenneth K. Kim has received nontrivial coverage in four newspapers (I consider four sources to fulfill the "multiple independent sources" that WP:BIO requires), he passes WP:BIO and is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the text of WP:BIO does not mention specific numbers in relation to sources. However, in my experience, in regards to newspaper coverage, WP:BIO has been traditionally interpreted to require a considerable amount of coverage in terms of numbers and I cannot see 4 articles as anything nearly sufficient. Of course, like I said, there are exceptions, such as, for example obituaries in major national newspapers. But for ordinary run-of-the-mill coverage, anything short of significant double digits just does not cut it. Nsk92 (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a stricter interpretation of WP:BIO than I. For me, "multiple independent sources" means "three or more sources", not "twenty or more" or "sixty or more".
These articles are not "run-of-the-mill coverage" that would fall under WP:NOTNEWS; they are spread out over a year. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newspapers are not secondary sources. The only secondary source that would qualify is Hall-Findlay, Elizabeth; Evans, Gregory, eds, but we have no page, nothing. It's furthermore saying "forthcoming", meaning what? That the article editors haven't read it? --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are secondary sources. The writers of the newspaper articles presented above do not seem to have been paid to write those articles. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Cunard, newspapers are definitely secondary sources. Many Wikipedika articles have their notability established with newspaper articles particularly those dealing with current figures and events. --Leivick (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles would be secondary source if and only if they were scientific and medicine magazines. Koreatown daily, Korea Herald Business and Korea Times don't look to me like scientific and medicine magazines. I stand by my opinion that this is a strong delete. Thank you for your attention. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 03:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a citation for your assertion that only "scientific and medicine magazines" are secondary sources. I consider newspapers that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight to be secondary, reliable sources. The Korea Herald and the Korea Daily—the U.S. edition of JoongAng Ilbo (a well-regarded national newspaper in S. Korea) (per cab)— are reputable sources. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cunard that some of these newspapers could be reliable sources. However, in this case, there are not enough of them and the sources that are accessible are slender. To satisfy WP:Prof #1 which is applicable to academics, scholars and researchers, and professionals we usually require, on the basis of past practice, 500-1000 cites from the independent research literature. The subject's cites are very far below these numbers. Although it is agreed that this BLP does not satisfy WP:Prof, claims for it are being made on the much weaker grounds of general notability. Even on these grounds, though, a substantial coverage is needed and it is not apparent here. Remember, the onus is on the proponent of any article to show that an article satisfies notability. My recommendation to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

My comments above demonstrate that Kenneth K. Kim passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria due to the significant coverage in four reliable newspapers. The subject is not notable for being a scholar or academic—he is notable for being a plastic and reconstructive surgeon. As such I do not judge Kim's notability based on citations for scholarly papers; I judge his notability by the coverage he has received for his profession and his contributions to society as a plastic and reconstructive surgeon. I stand by my position that four reliable newspapers are enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought I should cast my own vote, although I do not know how much it matters since I am the article's creator, so I would obviously want my article to be kept. However, since Xxanthippe is saying the burden is on the proponent of any article to show that an article satisfies notability, I thought I should also state why I think Dr. Kim is notable since I haven't made it clear. I appreciate all the opinions that are being presented here, and I find all of them to be very logical, respectable, and valid. I agree with Xxanthippe and Nsk92 that there should be a significant amount of coverage, and that these sources should all be from reputable sources. However, I think Dr. Kim warrants notability not based on just one thing, but based on all of the contributions he made collectively. Furthermore, the news coverage that he received from the Korean newspapers were significant, not just because they were from reliable, respectable sources that were independent of Dr. Kim, but because of what they said about him. They made it clear that he offered free plastic surgery operations to senior citizens who were in need in the community, which should establish notability not just in the Korean American community, but to any community. Although his academic record is impressive, it is his actions that are really noteworthy and something of an example, which I believe most people should know about. I have a tremendous amount of respect for people who give back to their community in such a manner, and who is willing to be so selfless as to give up some of their time to make a significant contribution without asking for anything in return. I really do appreciate all the time that is being spent by others on this AfD discussion/debate, and when it comes to Dr. Kim, I think it is respectable that he did a lot of research, traveled around the world, and began his own practice; yet I don't think that is enough to establish notability. To be honest, I chose him as the subject of my first article because he was such a notable person based on the way he was acting, which was different from how most people I know typically view plastic surgeons and plastic surgery. Based on what I've been reading, it seems like most plastic surgeons are known for either the academic contributions they have made in their field, or because of the amount of exposure they have received in terms of media coverage for doing something like taking part in a reality show that involves plastic surgery. I find all these to be noteworthy, but I also think that the quality of Dr. Kim's exposure have also been noteworthy. They were from reliable sources that were independent of Dr. Kim that didn't just discuss his academic accomplishments and skill as a surgeon, but they also mentioned the contributions he made to his society. Some of the operations even I did not know about, but thankfully, cab was able to find this article on him, which talked about how he offered free cleft palate surgery to patients. Thus, I believe that Dr. Kim definitely meets the criteria for notability, mainly because his actions, which were attested to by reliable, independent sources (and which were also heard of in our community), are significant, inspiring, and noteworthy on multiple levels.People bios (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to justify the claims above, would People bios, the creator of the Afd, be able to compare the sources for this AfD with those for other plastic surgeons of comparable standing who have BLPs on Wikipedia? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I am a firm believer in treating new editors with kindness and patience. As a first attempt, this article is quite good in many ways (structure, use of Infobox person template, etc.). I am certain of this editor's honorable intentions, but in its current iteration, this article falls outside of certain guidelines, including Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Much of the material in this article is what I would expect from a promotional pamphlet found in this doctor's office. Performing surgery for free makes Dr. Kim a nice guy, but it certainly does not establish his notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. As an aside, this editor's self-stated goal: "I started editing Wikipedia to try and raise awareness when it came to notable members of the Korean American community, respectable people in the general community...." is definitely at odds with the objectives of Wikipedia. Perhaps this article would be more appropriate for the Korean Wikipedia? I would respectfully encourage the editor to read William Pietri's essay Beware of the tigers, if she has not already done so. Lastly, I would also like to include a note of encouragement for her further contribution to the Wikipedia project. :-) DiverDave (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The article reads like a promotional puff piece and, by the author's own admission, was created exactly with that purpose in mind. It has already been clearly demonstrated that the subject is not notable as a researcher, falling far short of WP:ACADEMIC. Are we to believe then that he is notable as a community philanthropist /charitable activist then? If yes, there would be a lot more than 4-5 news-stories covering him. Compare with somebody like Sweet Alice Harris, who is indeed a notable community charity activist[29]. Show me this kind of coverage, in Korean or any other language, and there would be something to talk about. As it is, the article is a combination of spam and fancruft that does not belong on Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The promotional tone can be rectified. From Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems: "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." The article is well-sourced and is, I believe, fairly neutral. I have moved one sentence that could be construed as promotional to the talk page for further discussion. I do not believe Wikipedia:Tendentious editing applies, since People bios has not acted tendentiously; she is a newcomer who was unaware of Wikipedia's rules.
  The editor's self-stated goal ("I started editing Wikipedia to try and raise awareness when it came to notable members of the Korean American community, respectable people in the general community....") is not at odds with Wikipedia's objectives. People bios is doing the commendable job of countering systemic bias on non-English topics where sources are difficult to locate. She notes that she wants to write about "notable members of the Korean Community" (my bolding), so she clearly wants to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
  You have not commented about whether you believe Kenneth K. Kim passes the notability guidelines. Do you think Kim passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria? My opinion is that the significant coverage in four newspaper articles is sufficient to pass the "multiple independent sources" required by the guideline.
  People bios has noted that she does not have a conflict of interest with Kenneth K. Kim, so she has no gain if the article is promotional or not. I am willing to help People bios rewrite any parts of the article that are believed to be promotional. Will you point out specific phrases or sentences that you deem to violate NPOV? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

- Thank you DiverDave! I really appreciate your participation in this discussion along with your honest opinion.People bios (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment: I am beginning to feel confused. DiverDave, I really do appreciate you taking part in this discussion, but I feel a bit uncertain as to how to interpret this contribution you made. DiverDave, I am not sure how you could criticize this BLP, when you wrote the one on [this] living person, which was sourced by [references] that had no mention of him, and had [links] to youtube videos of his performances. I don't want to diverge from the point at hand, nor do I want to begin a different debate on the notability of Richie Castellano, so please do not let this extend to that. I appreciate the fact that you even made this contribution, since this seems to be the first wikipedia Afd debate you have participated in based on your [contributions], but I don't know how to interpret this anymore. I think I am a little hurt now because I was feeling like DiverDave was leaving an honest opinion, and I was really happy that someone wanted to comment at all, especially with such kind remarks regarding me being new to this whole thing. I feel really naive now, because i can't help but question how this article can fall under such scrutiny and criticism by him, and what the reasons are for doing this when I was just trying to write about someone that was noteworthy. I am fine with this one not going through if it is really based on a pure, unbiased perspective. I agree, I do not want Wikipedia to be full of "promotional puff pieces", because that would bring down the value of wikipedia as a whole. All I want is a fair Afd. I am starting to get the feeling that this is extending beyond the typical Afd discussion. Partly, I blame myself, because I made the mistake of saying this, which wasn't meant to be a personal attack since I wasn't trying to accuse Xxanthippes of being unreliable as much as I was looking for evidence to see why he would say that there were zero hits on Dr. Kim on Google Scholar when so many people already established that there were some, but not enough to establish notability. I think I just got a little too excited about this whole debate and I was treating it the way I used to approach mock trial competitions when I was younger. Still, I realized that this was different from how the WIkipedia community approached these discussions, and I realized my mistake and deleted the comment. Xxanthippes, I did look up the other BLPs that were under the category of American plastic surgeons, and many of them were not even sourced or referenced, but rather, had links to their websites and that's it. I just don't see the point in bringing them up though because I don't want this to diverge any more than it already has.People bios (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I should also mention, just to be clear, that I am not accusing DiverDave of anything, I am just confused because (based on what i've been hearing) it doesn't seem like his article falls under the parameters of "notability", so i am trying to figure out what does. i don't know if it's just me, because i realize i am limited to my own Point of View (everyone is), but it seems like he is guilty of the same thing he is trying to accuse me of, so I question why he is trying to bring this up. there is a difference between questioning and accusing, just like there is a difference between having good faith and being naive.People bios (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, DiverDave, I don't see how this article/BLP may be appropriate enough for Korean Wikipedia, but not appropriate enough for here. This doesn't make sense to me.People bios (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And the only reason I brought up the Richie Castellano article (I apologize if this was something I shouldn't do) was because Nsk92 left a comment about it on DiverDave's page, and it seems like it hasn't been questioned at all for notability. I may be wrong on this, but it seems like the only thing that fell under scrutiny was the fact that the hook wasn't long enough. Now, this is an honest question because I truly TRULY just want to know the truth: is the article falling under the parameters of "notability", and are the sources considered reliable? Because based on my very limited experiences on wikipedia, they weren't, but maybe i am mistaken? Any clarity on this would be appreciated, mainly because i just want to know how the article is more notable, then than the one I wrote on dr. kim. i realize that this article must stand on its own, but if DiverDave and Nsk92 could please explain how that article, its sources, and its subject is more notable than mine, then it would really help me understand this process a lot better and future issues/confrontation may be avoided. People bios (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted per People bios' wish to remove this content. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment. In her remark above of 18.14 12 July People bios rehashes her personal attack on me, followed by a flippant and insincere apology. [30] Together with the sock puppetry this would appear to be ripe for a RfC/U. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment – Can we focus on the purpose of the AfD? This is not a forum to discuss the implied, real, or imagined tone of comments. The primary purpose of this forum is to discuss the merits of the article. If there are issues associated with editors or their comments, they are best handled by other means, either directly with the editor or in an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion, not here on the AfD. As a general comment to all of us on this AfD, let us all remember that we need to apply WP:AGF to all comments and editors. ttonyb (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am sorry I was trying to erase the last couple comments i left because i realized they were diverging from the main issue, but they were reverted by another editor due to "bad form" saying "removing others' comments is considered bad form". I am not sure, but I thought it was okay to erase my own comment. Either way, I agree with Ttonyb1 and I am really starting to get stressed out by this. I apologize to Xxanthippe because I realize this is my fault, I started it by attacking him first. I truly believe he had good intentions when he first left his vote, and I am really sorry for questioning his motives. I also apologize to Nsk92 because I think I have also offended him because i kept asking so many questions on his talk page after he had left his vote, and I could see how that would get a little annoying after awhile. I think I was a little too idealistic when I started this entire article. The last time I ever engaged in this sort of thing was in High School, when I used to do mock trial. I was taught to win an argument by attacking the opponent's argument and validity, so I was using that tactic here. I realize now that that is different from how these debates are supposed to be carried out, and I am sorry. I was confused at first because it seemed like Xxanthippe never actually searched for the name since he said "nothing", but I talked to my friend about it and she pointed out that he could have been referring to "nothing significant" rather than how i interpreted it, which was as "nothing at all". I really am sorry because I realize I am the one that started this whole thing by making unnecessary accusations at Xxanthippe, and I truly seek his forgiveness on this. I don't blame him for getting defensive, because I realize i started it and it would have never happened if i hadn't attacked him first. this whole thing is causing me so much stress now and i feel horrible about how this is all turning out.People bios (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly collapsing content not materially relevant to this AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete, not much notable and not much coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impressive resume, like many other good doctors. JFW | T@lk 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all good doctors have received enough coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria; Kenneth K. Kim has received the "multiple independent sources" required to pass that guideline. These two articles from the Koreatown Daily, the article by Allan Choi in the Korean Daily (the U.S. edition of JoongAng Ilbo, a well-regarded national newspaper in South Korea), and this article from The Korea Times and the other sources at (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) establish notability. There are other sources such as this article from Yahoo! (a reprint of an article from koreaheraldbiz.com) which provides some more coverage. Few doctors have received this depth of coverage in a variety of newspapers. This distinguishes Kim from the legion of other doctors in the world, and is the reason that I believe this doctor passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can't judge the sources perfectly due to the limitations of Google Translate, but from what I can see there's probably enough here to pass WP:BIO: coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, if not particularly in-depth. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Kim has been the subject of non-trivial coverage that were independent of him, and the variety and depth of coverage has also been established by other editors. They verify that he has been noted as a scholar, surgeon, and as an individual. Also, DiverDave, thank you for your patience with me. I wanted to ask how this article might be more appropriate for the Korean Wikipedia rather than the English one. I consider notability on Wikipedia to be established by the same standards for every translation of Wikipedia. Although I do want to gain recognition of notable individuals who are of Koran American descent, my determination of what is noteworthy is judged by an individual's significance as an individual and is independent of their ethnicity. Since articles on non-English subjects have a practical issue they face — being that many of them will be backed by non-English sources — it seems reasonable that someone who is familiar with the language and culture should assume responsibility for writing articles on such topics. Additionally, this article has been reviewed, edited, and improved by others in the community for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Therefore, considering some members of the community have found the article's subject to be non-trivial and noteworthy, I would appreciate it if any editor who is questioning the article could suggest ways to improve the article in order to ensure it reads as encyclopedic content, rather than as a promotional ad.℮ՏڂҺℯɼ ❤ ʗҺɑʈ 00:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the person signing themselves as ℮ՏڂҺℯɼ ❤ ʗҺɑʈ is editing from the same account as People bios, the creator of the AfD who has contributed much to this debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

They are the same person/account. It is not altogether uncommon for someone's signature to not match their account name. That said, for clarity's sake it is good for anybody reviewing this to recognize that the comment above is from the same person as earlier comments from People Bios. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also 76.87.89.126 who is claimed to be People bios's room mate. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is well-covered at the top of this AfD. I'm not sure why it needs to be brought up down here as well. I wasn't sure what the point was in bringing it up at the top, for that matter -- I mean, all we have here is extremely damning evidence that People Bios signed a vote he contributed without signing in, and then corrected the error by signing in and re-signing his vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for bring it here is so the closing admin may get an idea of how many independent voices are taking part in this debate. The contributions of editors with a background in Korean-American culture are particularly valuable in a subject such as this. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

There are still a couple of posts in this AfD signed as 76.87.89.126 rather than as People Bios. People Bios says it was her roommate. Nsk92 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake -- I thought based on the earlier calls for a sockpuppet investigation and the previous tagging of this article with the "notavote" tag that some similar insinuations might be going on what with the "claimed to be" language I see above. I had no idea your intention was to draw out the importance of their respective separate contributions. I see now your intention was to point out that the IP and People Bios are separate people, which is perfectly agreeable. My apologies. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the IP address user 76.87.89.126 was my roommate. I have always gone back on and signed when it was me in order to avoid confusion. I have told her to stay off since the day this Afd began, and I have told her to stay off this discussion telling her she didn't understand the politics of Wikipedia (not that I am the authority on it either). Although her opinion should matter too we are not trying to cast more than one vote between us for this discussion anyways, so there is only one vote cast for the IP address. Also, I would like to clarify that I am people bios. I am new to this, and I spent three hours yesterday finding unicode text and html color codes to produce this --->℮ՏڂҺℯɼ ❤ ʗҺɑʈ 03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)As you can see, I am very excited about HTML these days. Finally, and more importantly, I was able to find [another article] on Dr. Kim from Radio Korea, which is the #1 Korean radio broadcasting station. The article is saying that the word is spreading that Dr. Kim is offering free ptosis surgery every Wednesday on a weekly basis for elderly patients who are in need. So far, this means that Dr. Kim has been mentioned by all of the significant Korean mass medias (that I am aware of) that are available in print form (i.e., The Korea Daily, The Korea Times, The Korea Herald Business, and Radio Korea).℮ՏڂҺℯɼ ❤ ʗҺɑʈ 03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the new article. If anyone is unhappy with the wording, please help me improve it. Thank you.℮ՏڂҺℯɼ ❤ ʗҺɑʈ 03:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People bios, have you voted twice here? .oh ok.I see it was your room mate from the same computer. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite correct. She has made it clear above that it was her room mate using the same computer. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

-Delete Seems to me that this doctor does not pass either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ACADEMIC doesn't seem to apply here -- Dr. Kim is not an academic. As for bio, I do not see how he doesn't pass. Significant coverage in multiple independent sources. But my primary point in commenting here is the WP:ACADEMIC bit -- there is clearly disagreement over the relevance of the existing coverage, and I respect that you disagree with my point of view on that! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New information/suggests delete Some of the papers are not the most objective. I think the Korea Daily and the Koreatown Daily are an American published Korean newspapers where you can advertise and then they will write an article about you. Other references are Wikipedia, which are not permitted. The Korea Hearld Business, I don't know. The scientific articles do not describe the man. The big problem of this article is that it lacks suitable references. Usually WP articles are for famous doctors who did some sort of research or first lung transplant. Just a Koreatown doctor is usually not enough. Besides, disgruntled patients could mess up the article. There's another Los Angeles doctor that managed to get a WP article even though it really doesn't meet notability standards. Also the doctor may not want a WP on him because then who know which disgruntled patient will edit it. The doctor is not an ophthalmic plastic surgeon (oculoplastic surgeon) and a general plastic surgeon really has no business doing ptosis surgery much as an oculoplstic surgeon has no business doing lung transplants. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Suomi for leaving such a thoughtful comment here. I do not know what you mean about the other references being Wikipedia, because I do not believe I referenced Wikipedia in here. When I was saying I was "correcting the links" in the article's [edit history], I meant links to the other pages in these things --> [ [ blahblahblah ] ]. Did I reference them improperly? The other possibility is that you mean the links send you to the article that is referenced in the same WP article, but if you paste them into the google search box, you can look up the actual article. Also, I am not sure about what the difference is between an ophthalmic plastic surgeon and a general plastic surgeon, but I know that Dr. Kim specializes in ptosis surgery. I am not sure if there is an exact reference for this, but the articles do talk about his work in those areas. They're just extremely hard to understand because they're in Korean, and the translation is difficult to understand as well because they do things such as referring to him (and the general public) in a very polite manner, which has a lot to do with the linguistic aspects of the Korean language (something I wish would change). [His research] also shows he has done some significant work in these areas. Also, there are many doctors who are known for doing some sort of research, while there are also many other doctors who are known for doing charitable work for their community, but I know very few doctors (in fact none) who are known for doing both. Dr. Kim has been sourced as doing all of these. Additionally, the [Korea Herald] article also mentioned his skill as a surgeon based on the reaction he has been receiving from the community. These are three different things about the same man that independently might be admirable, but collectively are notable.℮ՏڂҺℯɼ ❤ ʗҺɑʈ 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does anyone know when this thing ends? I am curious as to how long these things usually run for...℮ՏڂҺℯɼ ❤ ʗҺɑʈ 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually 7 days, and then an admin will assess them, and if there's no consensus they can be relisted for a further 7 days. This one looks rather complex, so it may be a little while until an admin can examine and understand it all before making a decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Cunard and others. The Korean-language sources provided look like enough for WP:BIO from where I'm standing, if only by a small margin. Alzarian16 (talk)

Delete First, I have every sympathy with the poor admin who will have to read through all this lot of verbiage to assess it. If, however, we ignore irrelevant material such as whether or not there has been sockpuppetry, People bios making a personal attack on Xxanthippe, etc etc etc, and if we leave out arguments unrelated to Wikipedia polciy (such as "hes been doing really great things and I wanted more positive korean american role models please please don't get rid of his article"), then we are left with the fact that the supposed notability rests on a number of newspaper mentions, most of which, by all accounts, are fairly insubstantial. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the vote. I am sorry about the confusion, but there was no sockpuppetry (just my roommate and I. Also, there was only one vote for that IP address, so that's that). Also, the personal attack was an accident. I am new to this and the proper way to go about these Afd discussions (this was my first article), so I made the error of treating this like a high school mock trial competition. I have been learning fast though. Finally, the newspapers that were mentioned were from reputable sources, and from a variety of them. Still, regardless of how this article turns out (keep/no consensus/delete) I am interested in trying to go over the other articles under the category of American Plastic Surgeons in order to clean them up and find either sources to back up their claims or have them removed and would like some help. I hate mentioning it here, but I do not know where I can go to say this. I realize now why this one is receiving so much opposition as I have been spending some time looking at the others. I am not trying to get them removed, but I would like to see people being properly informed and my students tend to rely very very heavily on Wikipedia for any and all things they consider to be "reliable information". Considering the popularity of plastic surgery has been spiking in recent times, I think it would be a good idea to make sure that these things are considered. I also am sorry for being so verbose and for asking so many questions, but I promise I'll pay back the Wiki community for their patience with me through what I learn in the process.℮ՏڂҺℯɼ ❤ ʗҺɑʈ 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another spam/vanity page. (Keeping down the verbiage...) Peridon (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metallurgical education

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

~~(Twinkle misbehaved on nomination. This has created a spurious third nomination. My apoloigies )~~that has now been corrected

The contents of this article are not about education, yet the title is Metallurgical Education. It has been in existence for a long time with no substantive improvement, and no signs of imminent improvement. As it stands it is a collection of text vaguely relevant to metallurgy, but of no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Its absence form the encyclopaedia would do the organ no harm at all since it adds no value of any description. I'm not even sure that the topic is notable of itself. Metallurgy is notable, of course it is, but degree courses and education in it are ten a penny. With that in mind I redirected it to Metallurgy. This redirection was supported by two further editors, only one editor opposed, but has reverted that redirection twice.

The article is itself not notable. The user who reverted the redirection and created the article has had it suggested that the article be userfied, worked on, and reinstated if it is ever notable and verifiable, but appears to have refused the suggestion, considering instead that AfD is the best place] for it to be handled. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article does discuss education. It is an obscure topic, but if you read the article, it is clearly a stub in search of exapnsion. It went through AfD once. Then a couple of editors decided after three days of comments (over a holiday weekend) that they would simply redirect it. This is an abuse of process. This second AfD is an abuse of process. Think of the time that could be spent expanding the scope of the article instead of waging a battle over AfD. Philly jawn (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on engineering education, physics education, chemistry education, and for what's it worth, a lot of univeristies and technical colleges were called have these programs or are named after the field (Gorno-metallurgichesky insititut (Горно-металлургический институт, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy) and ''Gorno-metallurgichesky technicum (Горно-металлургический техникум, College of Mining and Metallurgy). Philly jawn (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS lists things to avoid in deletion discussions. Each article on Wikipedia stands or falls on its own merits Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay. It is not policy. Citing the other pages shows the relevance of this one. Philly jawn (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It shows that other articles exist, no more and no less. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philly jawn I would like to point out it was not a "holiday weekend" everywhere. While you are reading WP essays and policies, perhaps WP:OWNERSHIP would be worth a read. Codf1977 (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note In order to attempt, this time, to have a far fuller discussion than the prior AfD I have left {{subst:Adw|Metallurgical education}} ~~~~ on the talk pages of all those registered editors who appear in the article history, and am about to do the same to those who contributed to the prior AfD. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. It's not policy, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS offers some really good advice - this article must stand on its own merits to be kept. Are there reliable sources that discuss Metallurgical education as a field of study? Is there prominent literature in the field? The other, related articles might bear mention, but if the only argument is that this should exist because those articles exist, you don't really have an argument. May I also suggest that we all assume good faith here? We have the AFD process specifically to discuss the merits of the article in question, so bringing it here is very much not an abuse of process, and accusing other editors of such abuse is right out. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The nom's reasoning that "Metallurgy is notable, of course it is, but courses and education in it are ten a penny" does not seem logical to me, as it could be applied easily to subjects such as those listed by Philly jawn (subjects that would easily survive AFD IMO). After looking at the article history, I am also skeptical that the article shows no signs of imminent improvement. I feel that if philly jawn were advised to structure the article along the lines of one of those he mentioned (engineering education, physics education, chemistry education) it would improve greatly. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and userfy. After further searching, I note that A: following Philly jawn's logic, an article on metallurgical education may not be warranted, as there is no article on materials science education. (I know this is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but it seems useful to me as Philly jawn's main argument is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS.) IMO, the two fields are comparable in many ways. B: A google search yielded nothing useful for sourcing an article. However, I would hope that print sources for this article could be found, and so I would strongly support usrfication if this article is deleted. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Philly is the only person that really wants to see this article survive. We went through the AfD process last time and he didn't do anything to improve it last time, so why will he this time? All of the non-list content is really content that belongs in the metallurgy article. If he were to modify the article so that we had RS inline refs that supported specific points about metallurgical education, not metallurgy, then I would support keeping it. Until then I don't see how anyone can support keeping this article. Wizard191 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is something very strange happening here. A whole raft of spurious links has appeared to the page under discussion created by Philly jawn. Some of these are through a strange new redirect page that appears to have been constructed to bamboozle like Metallurgic engineering (there are more), others are a tranche of See also entries. If I were not assuming good faith I would suggest that this is a WP:POINT set of edits. Creating imperfect links and weird redirects is not the way to save this article. Creating WP:RS citations for Metallurgical education, by which I do not mean a load of links to university and college prospectuses, is the way to save it. When and it of is verifiably notable as a separate topic then it can, if there is sufficient material to warrant it, have its own article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What exactly are you saying? I see nothing wrong in creating links to increase the relavance of a page. Newport Backbay (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic and title are valid, but the current content is too far from decent WP standarts. There are numerous problems in the first part (factual, grammar, POV, no refs - I could list a half page of specific mistakes), starting from the lead, and I would oppose the second part per WP:NOTDIRECTORY - there is no way to keep that list comprehensive and updated. The article can be easily saved by rewriting, but given its stale history, with no attempts to fix problems pointed out before, delete.
Some quick catches, apart from obvious grammar mistakes:
"study .. of skills";
destructive and non-destructive testing is not part of metallurgy, but stands above it;
"steels including iron-carbon alloys";
"Metallurgical chemistry .. is a useful study .. for chemistry students" (oh yeah!);
"[Metallurgical chemistry] course provides a basic knowledge of metallurgical chemistry; and managers or businesses" (Ugh);
"However, cutting-edge applications in this field [metallurgy] are developing super conductors and other atomically restructured metals" (Ugh) Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect - redirect to Metallurgy would say merge but there is nothing that I would think is worth taking, may be a valid search term . Codf1977 (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an incomplete, possibly bad, but useful article. Rather than bringing these articles to AfD, the nominator might think about improving the article itself.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia does not require useful articles. It requires notable articles whose notability is verifiable. This is not notable. Doubtless it could be made more useful, but that is not the point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please allow me to disagree. The article is both for a notable subject (education on Metallurgy) and verifiable (sources are sufficient). The article can be improved and expanded, and better sources can be brought, but as far as notability and verifiability, I don't see any problem with this article. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 17:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are enough for establishing the topic, but certainly not to justify its numerous incorrect statements. If the article survives this AFD, I would stubify it by all means. The trouble is, there would be hardly any correct statement to leave. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may be a little light on content, but it serves a purpose and should be allowed to remain. It has improved since the first time it was AFD. I am always suspicious when a second AFD is made. Especially in this case. The nominator tried to get around the first afd by simply redirecting the article ... and when that didnt work went 2nd AFD? Newport Backbay (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator should note that it is not articles that are notable, but article subjects. I've no doubt the subject is potentially notable, but this article is so poor, and evidently has been for a long time, that it should return to be a redirect, with material added there. If sensible material on specifically on education ever gets too big for the main article, this could be revived. I looked at a few of the science articles on the "education by subject" template (Chemistry education etc), & most seemed as weak as this; I'd support deleting them too. Sex education looked pretty good though. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances (album)

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

Delete all - three albums which do not pass either WP:N or WP:MUSIC. PRODs removed by User:Seeinc (as in SE Entertainment, Nikkole's label) who has made no non-Nikkole related edits over a four year editing history, which raises the spectre of self-promotion. PRODs removed with the addition of "sources" like blog interviews and links to the albums on Billboard.com, which prove the existence of the albums but do not establish them as notable. Otto4711 (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. You know, I'm not even sure if Nikkole is notable herself. Aside from the edits of all four articles being done by SPA Seeinc, all the edit summary tout Nikkole as being an award-winning singer, and I can find no sources that she was even nominated for any awards. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had PRODed her article also but decided not to AFD it as part of this discussion. There are interviews with her out there but I haven't really investigated them to see if they come from reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coghlin Companies, Inc.

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

Article doesn't appear to be overly promotional, but it is an obvious WP:COI; the cause for this AFD is that the company does not assert any importance. Why are they notable? It just seems like WP:MILL here, posting a page in efforts to get more notice. — Timneu22 · talk 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can add some things about Coghlin that make it noteworthy. I will collect some information in a way that is appropriate for Wikipedia and keep the not overly promotional tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coghlin (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. While this business may have been around since 1885, they are at least currently a contract manufacturer; what they make is not sold under their own brand, or designed by them. Unless this was different in the past, it seems unlikely that this business has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. Google News archive and Books turn up only routine coverage of transactions and directory listings. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul V. Kane

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

Biography of a UN employee that appears to be self-promotion and fails to establish subject's notability. "Published works" list consists mostly of satellite radio interviews and op-ed letters. Name of author (User:Linkstarpr) suggests a PR firm, possibly Linkstar PR. Proposed deletion tag was removed by the author in April. Fishal (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely promotion by a PR firm on behalf of the subject. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find significant coverage in independent sources on this man, which indicates the article doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Karanacs (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything about this person anywhere online, except for the single Op-ed he wrote. This one badly fails WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete - According to WP:BLP, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability." In this instance, the material is not 'contentious'.

While you might note that it is poorly sourced, the material is not contentious. There is no harm done in posting the articles he's had published in the NY Times and Financial Times. Since your research is so thorough in cause for deletion, how is it that you've come to the conclusion that Paul Kane is a "UN employee"? That is not true.

Furthermore, WP:BLP continues to say that "in less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents." Let's take this to an unbiased administrator rather than having one of you doing a simple google search and deciding definitively that you 'can't find anything about this person anywhere online.' Very thorough indeed. User:Whattheworldiswatching —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC). — Whattheworldiswatching (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: The issue is not whether it is contentious, but whether information on the subject is verifiable by outside sources, and whether outside sources indicate that the subject is notable enough for an encyclapedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability, in particular the first two sections, sums up the guidelines for verifying info on a topic. If Mr. Kane is you or someone close to you, Wikipedia:Autobiography gives guidelines for how to proceed. The fact that the article is poorly sourced is not trivial: especially for subjects not widely known, sourcing is everything. How else can readers be sure that the whole page isn't made up? Without reliable sources, there is simply no way the article is verifiable. Fishal (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not Paul Kane. I know the person who he saved on the metro however. Do with that what you must. [[User:whattheworldiswatching] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whattheworldiswatching (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This article was revised last week after nomination for deletion by Fishal. It is clearly notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia (recipient received a national award from the President of the United States), reliably sourced (Marine Corps Times, NYT et al) with multiple verifiable references, and without contention.

Fishal, suggest when you put something on the block for deletion that you re-read it after you hit the "Send" button rather than just posting a come lately reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.107.120 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC) — 72.83.107.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP. The page has been properly updated with links to articles in NYT, Financial Times, Military publications, etc. Fishal, in your objective analysis, wouldn't you agree the information on the page is not made up. It adheres to the standards outlined in WP:BLP. I agree with the comment above about the Presidential award as well. I saw the CEO of my company has a page on wiki recently. Makes me wonder if the guidelines set forth are more about having a lot of money or being famous rather than really about gathering and sharing information.User:GlennJames —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC). — GlennJames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is not a single source about Kane that I can see. Those are all by Kane. That does not count, folks. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sean Whyte (disambiguation). Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean White (disambiguation)

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

This one is a bit weird. The situation here is, there are four articles on individuals whose names are all pronounced the same, but spelled three different ways: Sean White, Shaun White, and Sean Whyte (x2). None of the four immediately pops out as being the primary topic (though one might be able to make an argument for the snowboarder or even the baseball player), and there is already a dab page at Sean Whyte. Since there are two articles spelled "Sean Whyte", I think the dab page for all four be located there per WP:DABNAME. I propose Sean White (disambiguation) be deleted as redundant, and all four articles contain dablinks to Sean Whyte (disambiguation), unless someone comes up with a better idea. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguate with hatnotes on articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect rename to the IPA form or just redirect to the larger dab page 76.66.192.55 (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sean Whyte dab Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as per only author request. Davewild (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott L Efflandt

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

This person does not seem to meet WP:SOLDIER, and I don't see any other notability. A couple newspaper articles doesn't seem to make this person significant. — Timneu22 · talk 14:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of notability per WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Seems like a fairly typical Army officer, no notable awards, commands, or participation in significant events; and the article is written more like a WP:RESUME than a biography. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly typical brigade commander. We can't list every brigade commander in history. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Colonels are not inherently notable. Another promotion and he will start to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the above comments. Colonel Efflandt's career is no more notable than any other officer of the same rank. Clearly a capable officer with years of faithful service to his nation but not notable in a Wikipedia sense. The awards are commendable and worthy of respect, of course, but not notable per WP:MILPEOPLE. Nor does it appear like the colonel was significantly involved in any notable historical events. More importantly, however, is the fact that the article is a WP:BLP issue and thus without any sources should be deleted IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy and your comments. We agree that the page may be deleted and will not appeal any further. Thank you.1BCTIRONHORSE (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Rising (book)

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

Contested prod. Article/potential sources contain no indication of notability as we require. Failing WP:BK means an article cannot be written. User contesting prod has not addressed these concerns. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I have no real opinion either way about this book, I do take issue with the nominator's assertion that "failing WP:BK means an article cannot be written", since he/she seems to be unaware that this is a notability guideline and not a policy and is therefore not set in stone. There is nothing to say that an article cannot be written, merely that it may not be a good idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. The text is written like a blurb. It is also patent nonsense: "the first book in the study of lost civilizations and alien contact"; "the very first work to suggest that ancient peoples were visited by extraterrestrials" – as if there is not a whole procession of predecessors offering such pseudoarchaeological junk theories about "ancient astronauts", such as Sitchin, Von Däniken, and Icke. --Lambiam 13:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dino LaVerghetta

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

Non-notable candidate; has never held office; does not even have the nomination yet. MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose instead of a delete, his name could be redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry should not be deleted. The candidate has been endorsed by three major parties, has received significant press coverage, and has been published in a major news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.153.217 (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC) — 98.14.153.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There's a comment at the article's Talk page that disagrees with that claim. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I challenged the above claim on the talk page, and I corrected the information in the article. He has been endorsed by a county Republican party, but he still has to earn the actual Republican nomination in a contested primary in September. As for the major news source which was cited, the Wall Street Journal article, it appears to be primarily about the congresswoman's Democratic challenger, rather than about the two Republican contenders. In any case, the usual WP:POLITICIAN understanding is that coverage about the ELECTION does not necessarily make the CANDIDATES notable. But I invite readers to evaluate the information for themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ MelanieN, with all due respect, that is incorrect. New York politics is strange. For state-wide offices (e.g. governor or senator), canddates are nominated at a state-wide convention. Once thy are nominated, they may still face a primary. For Congressional seats, candidats are endorsed/nominated by conventions in the counties in which the Congressional District resides. Mr. LaVerghetta has been endorsed/nominated by both the Queens and Manhattan parties. For this reason, I have changed the language back. As for the news sources, a quick google search will show that full articles have been written about him in Our Town, the Queens Courier, DNAInfo, etc. The Wall Street Journal article does concentrate on Reshma, but Mr. LaVerghetta is mentioned and quoted. Also, as a candidate, Mr. LaVerghetta has published a sinificant article in the Huffington Post icussing the unconstitutionality of the health care bill's individual mandate. Democrats in Manhattan will always receive more coverage than Republicans, but Mr. LaVerghetta is certainly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.153.217 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let it stand, since the article does still say that he is facing a contested primary. In any case notability is not achieved by having the nomination, but by "significant coverage in independent reliable sources," and that kind of coverage is what this candidate lacks. The sources cited in the article are: the candidate’s website; the website of his law firm; an article from DNAinfo, which is a “digital news service [31]", reporting the county Republican party endorsement; an editorial in the Queens Courier written by the executive director of the county Republican party; and a passing mention of him by a columnist for the Astoria Times. The only thing actually about him by an outside source is the article in ourtownNY.com, which is a freebie weekly newspaper with a circulation of 1000 [32]. The only Reliable Source cited at the page is the Wall Street Journal article about the Democratic challenger, in which any mention of this candidate is behind a paywall. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm striking out the word "keep" from your second comment. You only get one "vote", although you can comment as much as you like. That's why my comments are not prefaced with "Delete" - my "delete" vote is assumed from my being the nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Even being a nominee (which this individual is not) isn't enough to establish notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if he were a nominee, this wouldn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Besides that there isn't any significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has seven sources - two of them are his personal website and one of them his company's website. Another two the huffington post and ourtown are blogs. All of those fail WP:RS. The last two simply establish that he is seeking the nomination which is not notable in itself. Valenciano (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This article should be kept. OurTown (which is a newspaper), the Queens Courier, and DNAinfo are all significant sources in NYC and each has written full articles about Mr. LaVerghetta. Publication in the Huffington Post is also significant for a candidate. Finally, a quote in the Wall Street Journal adds to the candidate's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.153.217 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — 98.14.153.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Once again I am striking out the word "keep" from the front of your comment. You are welcome to comment as much as you like, but you have already "voted" Keep, above, and you only get one "vote." --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it I am a voter in the District with no affiliation with his campaign. He is the most notable Republican candidate we have had here in a very long time. He is in the press a lot and everyone is starting to know who he is. I see no value in deleting the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.160.2 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he's "in the press a lot" then where are these sources? Please have a read of WP:GNG. For notability to be established he must have been covered extensively in reliable sources. Passing mentions or quick quotes in relation to his election campaign don't cut it as he fails the notability criteria in WP:POLITICIAN. Being "the most notable candidate of party x in a long time" is an entirely subjective judgement which can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion and even if it were true, it wouldn't make him notable. The value in deleting him? There are hundreds of thousands of people who run in elections every year and Wikipedia can't and shouldn't be clogged up with every non entity that runs in an election. Valenciano (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Dino LaVerghetta is the youngest ever candidate to be endorsed by the Republican Parties in Manhattan and Queens. This unsigned comment added by 69.193.146.42. — 69.193.146.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subconscious, Conscious and Superconscious

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

Original research fork with no reliable sources; consciousness and the subconscious are already adequately covered in their own articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pure original research. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in the sense of Wikipedia editors making up novel things and putting them into Wikipedia, it isn't. There are people who have written books espousing these very ideas. One of them, The Game of Life and How to Play It, was written by Florence Scovel Shinn in 1930. I can find other books that cite Shinn, too. So it's not original research in the sense of one person's idiosyncrasies, either. Nor — 1930, remember — is it a novel creation. Hindu psychology: its meaning for the West tells us that although it is largely derided by European and American psychologists, this theory of mind has been studied by William James. So, too, does William Walker Atkinson's Subconscious and the Superconscious Planes of Mind. And, indeed, a quick search turns up The Varieties of Religious Experience talking about samadhi, for one, as a superconscious state of mind.
  You may not agree with the hypothesis that the mind operates this way, but this is far from being one person's idiosyncractic and novel thesis being published first in Wikipedia without any traction in the world at large. On the contrary, it appears to have had at least 80 years of traction at this point. Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends on what you mean by "it", Uncle G. I've found an external article with the exact same title (on the WP spam blacklist, so not linkable here). There, "superconsciousness" is distinctly theological. But the WP article (in some way left unstated) situates "superconsciousness" clearly within some mainstream (Freudian, Jungian) psychological theories with no clear mystical or theological elements. You've turned up evidence (not too hard to find) that the word has some history. But the article should then be about its notable uses. Do we have one of these here? In a way, we do already, but it argues for Delete: Superconsciousness currently redirects to Collective unconscious. The notability of the concept, under a different term that many more people will recognize, is ample enough. Somebody still needs to show that "superconsciousness" can be something else, something notable per se. Yakushima (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being OR in this form. Just read the article creator's exposition on the talk page ("I have not taken the time to peruse the literature and aggregate sources accurately"). As the article does not explain the notions (what is "superconsciousness" supposed to mean?), it is not encyclopedically useful anyway. It is also not clear that different authors independently inventing the neologism "superconsciousness" intended it to mean more-or-less the same concept. This recommendation to delete is without prejudice – please come back when workable definitions of these various paraconsciousnesses, as well as the various pronouncements in the article such as about the relationship with "current psychological treatment", can be sourced from reliable sources. --Lambiam 10:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being OR per Lambiam. Perhaps this needs to be incubated? Bearian (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lambian and the existence of article Collective unconscious, which probably covers any solid notability it has. Yakushima (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. is it usual for discussions about wrestling subjects to ignore the sourcing issue when that is the primary issue for consideration at AFD? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nexus (Professional wrestling)

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

It has barely been a month since the formation, and I feel that maybe in a couple more months notability could be established. It's also mostly a cut and paste from a section of the WWE NXT article. Θaks ter 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Θaks ter 21:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable at this time.--WillC 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group is a big thing right now and are being pushed into greatness they arn't leaving anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.155.222 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete They are becoming notable but you've got a point that it's only been a month since the formation so I gotta say they need a little be more time ~~(But if someone says something to the contrary I might change at any time).--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete or redirect to WWE NXT, too early. Nikki♥311 01:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously, if stables like The Vinces Devils can have articles and the New Breed can have articles these guys should have an article. Plus this article is well written, so it should be kept..You are just going to have to readd it later anyway. Final Flash (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL. Nikki♥311 03:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nexus are here to stay, I believe, so might as well set up the page now than to delete it and make a new one when they eventually start fighting people on RAW. Also, the impact they have done already is, in my humble opinion, enough to warrant a page for them. Fantasma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The Nexus faction has been incorporated into the main event storyline of the WWE Raw brand for the last month and shows no signs of being moved off of it. One can't be much more notable than that. A better argument could be made that articles for the individual Nexus members should be eliminated and incorporated into this article since their respective careers have largely not been notable outside of NXT/Nexus. EvWill (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am now going to stay a delete now. Fantasma, You can't assume they won't end next week anyway saying that violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, the guideline in which Nikki stated before.--Curtis23's Us al ions 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the reports are true and Wade Barrett is currently deported in real life due to visa issues, that could make some significant effect to the storyline before it's barely started. And speaking as a fan of this storyline, I still believe an article is not needed. The history simply consists of: beat people up, demand contracts, beat more people up, get contracts, beat even more people up. That could be summed up in a couple of sentences (and it already is through WWE NXT#Season 1). -- Θaks ter 07:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's being reported that Barrett's visa issues weren't as severe as initially thought. Th 2005 (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This group is going to be very famous in the next month,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With that comment, you just proved it should be deleted because you stated its not famous yet. Future notability is the same as no notability!. You can't speculate that notability will be achieved, you have to wait for it, and when its achieved, an article can be made. Feedback ^☎ 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This also violates WP:CRYSTALBALL to.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above this. Feedback ^☎ 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of sources and are argubly the number 1 storyline in WWE right now. STAT -Verse 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said "argubly". Red Flag on the Right Side 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD is filled with stuff like "They will be very famous next month"-If they are they will get a page next month and this violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. "Arguably the #1 storyline right now" This violates WP:NPOV. "The Nexus faction has been incorporated into the main event storyline of the WWE Raw brand for the last month and shows no signs of being moved off of it."-WP:CRYSTALBALL We don't know if they'll end next week."The Nexus are here to stay, I believe, so might as well set up the page now than to delete it and make a new one when they eventually start fighting people on RAW."-WP:CRYSTALBALL."You are just going to have to read it later anyway"-WP:CRYSTALBALL. All 5 keep comments have a violation: 4 WP:CRYSTALBALL violations and 1 WP:NPOV violation. Can't you people who vote keep see that.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are the most talked about stable in the entire WWE right now. infact perhaps of all Pro Wrestling.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a long term storyline already making headlines. They were involved in the main event at a pay per view and Barrett as it's leader does have a title match coming (unless he doesn't sort out his visa issues which I doubt). Podgy Stuffn (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They're not notable yet. The Main Event Mafia was given the same consideration during it's first few additions. It's too soon for this article. Don^MEGĂ|60645 12:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable publications (Pro Wrestling Torch, WrestleView, Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Sky Sports) meets WP:N. The repeated "We will always say 'maybe next month'...and then, next month, repeat 'maybe next month'...and then, the month after that, repeat 'maybe next month'" needs to stop. There is no actual dividing line that will cause WP:PW to recognize someone as notable, so this discussion has happened countless other times with tag teams and stables in major promotions...always ending with the article being created months later. The only important question is "Can an article with a decent amount of detail, sourced to reliable references outside of the promotion's website, be created at this point?" Obviously, that's exactly what has already happened, so this discussion is not needed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is quite clear that this group is part of a major storyline. Pretending otherwise is ignoring the fact they have, already, been featured in two feud-events (or whatever you call it). They're at the very least here to stay until this storyline is finished. They're just as notable as any other group, arguably more so as one could say the whole point of the NXT first season was to get them over for this...which, given what's happened, seems highly likely. 18-Till-I-Die (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can not agree with Curtis re WP:CRYSTAL because they are already doing things now, and the Barrett title shot (per Podgy) is a given. Also, they are all from the first season of NXT so it is a flow on and seperate now that we have eight new NXT rookies. Mal Case (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major part of the current WWE storyline, and several of them are better known for being in the group than individually. There is also a page for Rated-RKO, who were only together for six months. Steveweiser (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the current centerpiece of the WWE's storylines. Its notability is already established, and its potential to be further expanded on a weekly basis is through the roof. This is an extremely wasteful nomination. Vodello (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big group right now. Muur (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The group is a notable stable of a notable television show. An article is suitable for them. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to WWE NXT and create a section for it in expansion of Season 1.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirect will only make nxt page much bigger than it needs to be. Also other wrestling stables have their own pages and if deleted it will likely end up with its own page down the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.84.84 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep They have been prominently featured on Raw since they have arrived there, and their feud with John Cena and others is seemingly always featured as the most important thing, but from the arguments above I can go either way. WWEFan225 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Storywise, they're the biggest thing WWE has going for them. They attacked the WWE's poster boy John Cena, CM Punk, Jerry Lawler, and other personalities in their official "coming out" party, attacked a former WWF champion Bret Hart the following week, and attacked the head of the WWE Vince McMahon the week after that. While they're largely seen as "rookies," the Nexus has many years of wrestling experience between them. They have become main-event players in a remarkably short time, or at best shaking up the bland storylines on the Raw brand. Nemalki (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is quite clearly a group that is being pushed by WWE and will remain so. Deletion seems redundant as the page will only need to be recreated in a months time. White43 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this because this discussion is almost worthless as an exercise of establishing consensus as hardly any of the comments have any grounding in policy. To help the next admin reviewing this discussion, please can participants comment on a) the breadth and nature of sources specific to this subject and b) whether this makes them independently notable per GNG (i.e not inherited). Whether to merge or redirect does not need admin tools to resolved so we are really only looking at delete or keep at this stage. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- on the basis of the article being about nothing but just the attacks by the group. The entire section of "Attacks" goes into detail and detail about all their attacks, but it's not informing the readers about anything. Why was the group formed? Why do they attack? Why are they still together? Why are they in unity after losing Season 1 of NXT? The fact that the members formed a group and were awarded WWE contracts even though Barrett was the only one that one NXT S. 1, can all be summarized in about 1 or 2 paragraphs in the section for the main WWE NXT article and its season 1 section. --Truco ₅₀₃ 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable publications (Pro Wrestling Torch, WrestleView, Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Sky Sports) meets WP:N. That's really the only question—are they given a fair amount of discussion in reliable, non-primary sources. The answer is yes, so they meet notability guidelines. "Maybe later" is just a personal preference, IDONTLIKEIT response when the notability guideline has been met. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I completely agree with Truco's comments which furthers my previous comments on this article. And with regards to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I do actually appreciate the stable on TV. However, I just feel that a stable that hasn't even had a single match since their formation (until next Monday, which in itself is a future event) lacks notability. -- Θaks ter 17:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added more reason why they formed, so the guy who complained can be quite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muur (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one, be WP:CIVIL. Second of all, you added nothing but pure personal opinion. I stay with my delete. No one is arguing notability, but what is the point of an encyclopedic article that is informing the reader nothing but rather giving news about what they are doing on a weekly basis. At least Straight Edge Society has a basis to be an article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep, assuming the various sources are really considered independent of the subject, and all that (I'm not familiar with how reporting on Pro Wrestling is done). It appears that these guys have enough coverage to satisfy the GNG, regardless of whether they've fought yet or not. Being covered is sufficient for an article. Buddy431 (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wrestling Observer Newsletter, WrestleView, and Pro Wrestling Torch are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide as independent websites proven reliable. Sky Sports is not specifically related to wrestling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It has been a group for about a month now on WWE programming and it's one of the biggest angles currently in professional wrestling. They wear "N" wristbands and other various things to show they belong to this stable. It's an obvious keep because as I said, they are a major part of WWE programming and will be in following months. At least 2 of them will also have a continued career after the stable ends(doesnt look to happen anytime soon). Y5nthon5a (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main eVent Pro Wrestling

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

Fails WP:CORP. No reliable sources apparent which actually refer to this "Main eVent" and not some other "Main Event". VernoWhitney (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP which is why I proded it the other day. Nikki♥311 01:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tapasvini of Gangadhara Meher

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

This article is about a book that does not meet notability. It is a translation of a notable work, but this particular translation does not appear to be notable. The list of references supplied are primarily sourced to the author of the translation. There is this mention of the book. But that is not sufficient to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -The original work is notable. But not this translation.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Page is linked to from ITN on the main page. Fences&Windows 14:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 South Kivu tank truck explosion

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

The creation of these sorts of articles rally needs to be nipped in the bud IMO, stem the tide of gathering newscruft per WP:NOT#NEWS. In particular we turn to WP:NEWSEVENT, where this event has no foreseeable lasting effect or historical significance, no real in-depth coverage (truck blew up, people steal fuel, authorities investigate, rinse, repeat through AP, AFP, Reuters, etc...). This is not what an encyclopedia is for. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AFD rationales should be specific to the article in question. If you want to debate wider issues about news, recentism etc there are other avenues for that - the AFD process should not be used to try and set a sitewide policy/precedent. Exxolon (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lord knows I'm fully behind NEWSEVENT, but 230 dead is a huge total for what was effectively just a traffic accident. It surely has to be a record in some respect. I find it very unlikely that this specific incident will not be remembered in the Congo, and not to wave the systemic bias flag, but had this happened in a Western country, the article would be ten pages long by now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See above. Toa Nidhiki05 14:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:EVENT advises not making such rapid and rash deletion nominations. International coverage ticks at least one box, and the President of the country has visited the site and declared two days of mourning.[33] I suggest that we leave some time to see what, if any, lasting effect or coverage this produces, and then perhaps a selective merge to a suitable location could be suggested if this is later seen not to meet the guidance in WP:EVENT. Fences&Windows 14:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: 230 dead and this thing's not notable? There are airplane crashes that killed 150 and they're on this site. Heck, there are airplane crashes that killed 15 and are on this site. There are van crashes that killed 8. Obvious keep. (getting diffs for the referenced edits) N419 BH 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ale HaShalom

AfDs for this article:

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

It's just a street. No indication of notability. Source given is a passing reference to its existence. PROD removed by original editor. PamD (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just don't see how the road that half surrounds Mount Zion is "just a street." Even just by its location indicates historic significance. --Oakshade (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes it is a street but a very important one indeed. It forms the southern boundary to the Old City of Jerusalem, with two of the eight open gates to the Old City located along this street. Altogether, there is a lot of history here. This picture shows how busy of a street it is trafficwise. Linda Olive (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, any sources to support these claims of importance? A photo showing that a street is busy is entirely irrelevant, there are literally millions of busy streets on this earth. A map proving the street exists and is where the article says it is is nice for verification but we need some sources that actually discuss the street itself and explain it's significance. Proper sourcing is the problem in 95% of all deletion debates and the main reason articles are deleted. Simply insisting that it's notable without providing any evidence doesn't cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do keep in mind that "Ma'ale HaShalom" is only one variation of the Latin character spelling of this modern Hebrew name. According to several sources, the pre-Israel Arab name was "Ain el-loza" and this again is only a Latin variation spelling of the Arabic name. A street so central in a city that dates back literally thousands of years likely had multiple names with many spellings in multiple languages. This makes 21st century web research difficult.--Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in college in Jerusalem more than 20 years ago, I took some courses on the history of Jerusalem, one of that described the history of many of the city's streets. I do not have the textbook that had all the information I would have wanted to provide. I do remember this street having a different name. I had forgotten what it was. Thank you Oakshade for reminding me. Agreed, there are surely lots of sources out there, but not with either of these spellings with English letters. Linda Olive (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is an extremely important street in the history of an extremely important city. Raisescale (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. Yea, we've already established that people feel that it is a very important street. Now what we need is some verification of that. It seems most of the "keep" arguments are based on the feeling that there must be some sources somewhere. I'm willing to accept that possibility, but unless and until somebody actually cares enough to find those sources all we have to go on is "feelings" which are obviously not sufficient and cannot be considered as reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried using Google translate to come up with the Hebrew name so I could check the Hebrew Wikipedia, unfortunately the machine translation doesn't appear to be accurate enough for a match, the words I got back apparently meant "up the peace." If we could find a user who is fluent in Hebrew they could probably help shed some light on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt's essentially an extension of Ophel st. There are not too much references for the name "maale hashalom' since it must be a new street name. In HE google, most of the dozens of highly ranked references with that name are about the street being closed due to the Pope's visits. Ophel returns many more substantial links. --Shuki (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what I've found about most of the streets in Jerusalem, including this one. Most of them are physically one street that changes names every few blocks. Many are notable, but determining how to name the article or finding sources is difficult. The names translated into English also can be spelled many different ways. I've been planning on writing articles about every street in Jerusalem that doesn't have one, and this has been the main challenge. Linda Olive (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been poking around trying to find a Hebrew speaker to help us out with this, and now here you are! If you could identify some WP:RS in those links and post them either here or, even better, in the article that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: I think that if you're "planning on writing articles about every street in Jerusalem that doesn't have one" then you need to think carefully what content there is going to be in those articles. Existence of a street doesn't imply notability (as far as I know), and you need to tell us why the street is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. All this one does is to tell us where it is. PamD (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally with that. I realize Jerusalem is not just another city, but even so there are only so many streets that are notable unto themselves. Passing by notable locations does not automatically confer notability on a street. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —msh210℠ 12:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone above asked for the name of the street in Hebrew. It's "מעלה השלום". (No opinion on the merits.)—msh210℠ 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this, and my inclination was to delete as notability hasn't been established. However, as there are five people keen on keeping this article it seems appropriate to give this AfD another seven days for those five people (or any others) to establish notability by finding reliable sources, and if notability cannot be established within that time then delete. No prejudice against someone starting up the article later when reliable sources have been found which can explain why it is considered notable. SilkTork *^YES! 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been using Google Image Search to look at old maps. It seems that this street is of relatively humble, recent origins. This 1883 map shows no road south of the Dung Gate. This 1912 map shows a road there, but note the near absence of buildings. No old maps bother identifying it. If sources are provided, recreation is of course an option. Abductive (reasoning) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This maps could serve as sourcing to show the origins of this street. Linda Olive (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There is no actual written information about the street itself other than the fact that it wasn't on one map and is on another one. The first map could simply have been inaccurate or incomplete. At the risk of repeating myself, what is needed is reliable sources that have significant, non-trivial mention of this particular street. Since nobody has been able to find those after all this searching, I say we delete the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. After all, I'm only guessing from this map evidence. The only maps I could find online with a name written for it are very recent. Abductive (reasoning) 01:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Street has many names in different languages,and there is the potential for sources from different places. Dew Kane (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proffer the names. Abductive (reasoning) 02:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential or theoretical sources are no good. We need actual sources, not feelings or suspicions that sources exist. Three weeks onto this debate and still nobody can find them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Wallace

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

Can't find anything adequate to source this. Fails WP:ATHLETE I think. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've recently been trolling through the unreferenced BLP list looking for people (read: athletes etc.) that I can source. I remember coming across this article and leaving it because all I could find were game recaps and such. Nothing I could find was enough to establish notability in my mind. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of significant coverage in independent sources, so the article fails the WP:GNG. Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I almost nom'd this when I saw it before. Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG.
Delete, closest he got to notability was playing for a month in the American Basketball Association (2000–present). This does not pass WP:NSPORT -Drdisque (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis McKenzie

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

Can't find anything adequate to source this. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can confirm existance (here), but that's about it. No sources are apparent for the law firm, either. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while sourcing does need to be improved, this is not a reason for deletion. He's a member of a US state senate, a first level sub national parliament, therefore meets WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Aren't state senators, with articles including them, presumptively notable? See wp:politician, which states: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards.... Politicians who have held ... sub-national (statewide...) office, and members and former members of a ... state ... legislature...."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a member of a sub-national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but can you find any sources which could actually be used to write an article??I can see no indication of significant coverage in independent sources. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you back to the notability standards. A person is generally notable if they meet the standards that this person without question meets. Full stop. As to your working on the article, that is a different issue, but you might start with the articles to which I referred you above.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Epeefleche says. Maybe you're unaware of it, but stubs are perfectly acceptable articles. The fact he exists and he's a member of the legislature can be sourced and are perfectly sufficient for an article to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per references added by Epeefleche it meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In an ideal world, Wikipedia has articles on every legislator in the world for which verifiable sources exist. There are plenty of verifiable records for the Idaho legislature. It will just take an enterprising encyclopedist to go dig them up and use them to write a good article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right Price Furniture

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

completely unreferenced (in reality) article that fails WP:ORG. A single market release is not enough coverage. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely speedy delete as blatant advertising: The strategy of listing products on the internet enabled a relatively small retailer to reach customers throughout the whole of the UK while maintaining the operating costs of only one showroom. The low operating costs in proportion to the high volume of sales enabled prices to be substantially reduced in comparison to the prices charged by traditional High Street furniture retailers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising only: no sources or evident notability. 161.49.249.254 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the Oxford Union

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

This page is unsourced and by the very nature of its subject material can never be sufficiently sourced. Qu e ntin Smith 12:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suspect that most if not all can be sourced, e.g. a quick scan through Google Books confirmed Lord Alfred Milner (from 1876), Bryan Magee, John Beverley Nichols, John Buchan (from 1899).--Michig (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC) There are also several books about the Union [34], and books such as the Alumni Oxonienses series which may well cover all of the earlier presidents. --Michig (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prominent and significant position, easily sourced, and held by many people who have gone on to achieve notability in their own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point I am trying to make is that even if you went through each person and checked whether or not they were a president thro' a proper source, you would at very least only find out that they were a president and certainly not what term it was in - and even if you did this you would probably omit some that did not go on to achieve notability in their own right. So there is no way this list could possibly be complete and current. --Quentin Smith 08:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I'm at a loss to see why you think this is a good reason to delete the article even if this were true (which, frankly, I doubt - I imagine it would be easy enough for someone based at Oxford to check who was president when). Which Wikipedia policy do you think you're following? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I imagine it would be easy enough for someone based at Oxford to check who was president when" - then by all means do so but I haven't seen any one make any effort to do so. "Which Wikipedia policy do you think you're following?" - As it stands this fails WP:BLP, for starters, which means there is an obligation to remove it. Also WP:NOR, because if you search for "List of presidents of the Oxford Union" on Google it shows only Wikipedia caches which shows that before this article was written there was no single list, at least on the internet; this article is at best synthesis, then, unless it was copied from a book, in which case, it firstly would be cited and secondly would come up in an internet search any way because the Oxford Union is old enough that such a list would be out of copyright by now. "Sorry, but I'm at a loss to see why you think this is a good reason to delete the article even if this were true" - because Wikipedia needs sources - it relies on them for two reasons. Firstly, suppose I'm researching Mr Blah. I come across this page that says, "Mr Blah was a president of the Oxford Union in Michaelmas 1997." But for the reasons given above, it would be nigh-on-impossible to confirm that exact date anywhere else, be it in a book or on the internet. So who do I cite for the project? Wikipedia? Secondly, suppose this time I am Mr Blah. What is to stop me putting an article in this list saying I was the president of the Oxford Union? This could allow people to make themselves false CVs. For these two reasons Wikipedia relies on being properly sourced. --Quentin Smith 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but your claim that it fails BLP is frankly laughable. Where do you get this sort of thing from? In what way is stating that someone was President of the Oxford Union likely to be challenged? It's an honour, not a libellous allegation! Then we have the common and ridiculous claim that it doesn't have Google hits, so it must be original research. Dear, oh dear! Google is not the only source out there. The internet is not the only source out there. In any case, I have just googled half a dozen presidents from the last forty years at random and the presidency of every one of them was confirmed by a reliable internet source. Then you appear to suggest that the content of all books that are out of copyright may be found on Google! Er, no. As for people using the information for projects or CVs, Wikipedia is not a definitive source and has never claimed to be. If it were we wouldn't let anyone edit whatever they chose. Wikipedia does indeed need proper sourcing, but it's an ongoing process and not being sourced is not a reason to delete non-sensitive material. Many of these articles were written before Wikipedia was particularly hot on sourcing. It's not an excuse for people to go around nominating them for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is easy to source. For example, starting at the top, the first entry may be confirmed here. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom provides no policy reason for deletion. This one just needs some attention.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All these entries are potentially sourceable, many are notable in their own right and have articles, and there is no specific reason to challenge entries. Also the reasons for nominating thsi list are not good reasons. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valenciagate scandal

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

Unencyclopedic content. Multiple issues. Content largely based on NPOV opinions. Very minor incident, only a drive through penalty. Much of the content duplicated in 2010 European Grand Prix. Not actually a scandal. Falcadore (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a lot wrong with this: the original article was for an in-race incident that was covered in detail on the 2010 European Grand Prix page. It was written with an incredible pro-Ferrari and anti-Lewis Hamilton bias, using terms like "innocent" and "guilty" to refer to each, cited numerous examples of other similar cases that involves Hamilton and paid a lot of attention to the reaction from Ferrari and virtually no-one else. It included a dozen Spanish-language references from sources that are considered unreliable at best and incredibly biased at worst. Nor does it qualify under the defintion of a "scandal". Consensus on the article talk page, 2010 European Grand Prix talk page and WP:F1 seems to be in favour of delete with a motion to merge anything that can be salvaged, though opinion seems to be that there is nothing worth merging and the title of the article is informal and inappropriate. The article has since been re-written in line with a neutral POV, but no longer contains references because I didn't have any at hand nd I feel the article is not worth keeping. There are half a dozen other examples of controversial penalties in the sport that I could care to name, yet none of them have a page here. In short, it was little more than a thinly-veiled attack on Hamilton hiding in the guise of an encyclopedia article written by a fan who felt that the decision was unjust. Therefore, delete! Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without hesitation This page is atrocious and relates to an incredibly narrow part of one race in formula one. This article appears to have been created as a vent for the frustration of Pro-Ferrari editors which cannot be allowed. Most of the Pro Ferrari bias has though now been removed. This article can have as many sources as it likes but in this case it is not made notable by them. If this article is allowed to remain then there will be an unworkable proliferation of every single incident that happens in a race and the gate suffix will be used to give at sense of sensationalism above its actual weight. This page and similar pages must not be allowed to be created separately and where possible must only be on Wikipedia as part of the article on the Formula one race, the incident occurred in.-- Lucy-marie (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any useful information, and I feel there may be none, can be merged to 2010 European Grand Prix and this article should then be deleted. It was never necessary, as the above editors have said, even if it were written without the hopeless bias that originally shrouded it. A very inauspicious article, with very shady intent. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ignoring the quality of the article, although I share the views expressed above, this article serves as a POV fork to the race article at 2010 European Grand Prix, where the incident is already discussed. That article is not yet even 32 kb in size and there is no good reason to split off a daughter article. Google suggests that 'Valenciagate' is not widely used outside this article, and I suggest we do not use the term as a redirect either. 4u1e (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article regards an incident that can easily be covered by the 2010 European Grand Prix article, the race in which the incident happened. Currently the incident only exists as an accusation by one team and its drivers that they were treated unfairly. Nobody else has said much about it. Was horrifically biased when created, although this has since been altered. - mspete93 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the name is hardly a given one for this incident and whatever of the text should be saved, should be in the article on the race. John Anderson (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I must say that I disagree with the opinion of the nominator that it was "a very minor incident". Quite the opposite, the incident is very notable and IMO deserve an article of its own. The FIA already had to change the safety car regulations because of it and according to this webpage [35] it seems that now Jean Todt has summoned Hamilton, Alonso and Whiting for a meeting before the British GP to review the Valence events and according to the webpage he wants to know why it took so long for Hamilton to be penalized. And lets be honest, any incident involving Alonso and Hamilton gets huge coverage by the press. Dr. Loosmark 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Loosmark, can you explain why you don't think any and all of this can be covered in the existing race article? Or if not there in the season summary. Why do we need a separate article, without its proper background and context and with the potential that brings for inconsistency? Note that between them the two articles currently have around 19kb of text (not accounting for the overlap in coverage between the two). WP:SIZE recommends that under 40kb of text does not justify splitting on size grounds and in practice many articles are much larger. 4u1e (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well mainly because this has become too big to be covered by a few lines in the race article, it's not a mere race accident. And they are still trying to fix the safety car rules, it's mess: [36] I don't get why don't they just close the pits when the safety car comes out until the pack is bunched behind the SC. A couple of years ago that rule didn't work because people were running out of fuel, but now it would be a perfect solution without all those delta times and what not. Dr. Loosmark 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but that's a very poor argument. How can you logically claim that it's too big to be covered in the race article, when there is plenty of room to expand the race article? And if safety car rules are becoming a big thing this year (probably true) then the 2010 Formula One season article should cover it in the proper context of the whole year. 4u1e (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it should only be covered by some few lines in the race article? I think it is a much more important incident than just to write a few lines about it, it could defenitely have its own section. OTOH, it is not noteworthy enough to have an article of its own and as it is so closely linked to the race in question it should be covered in the race article. If there should be an article the article should definitely not be called anything like 'Valenciagate' since that can probably not be deemed a neutral name for the incident. John Anderson (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: While potentially irrelevant because of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I think the comparison here is valid. What other Formula One articles have arisen not covering season and race coverage because of controversies? FISA/FOCA war, Nelson Piquet crash incident, what else? The action involved here were a drive-thru penalty and a tweaking of the safety car regulations, is that even remotely compareable to the impact of these other incidents? Can we please have some perspective and not succumb to WP:RECENTISM. --Falcadore (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ayrton Senna would be another. On the other hand, there are not separate articles for the two championship-deciding collisions at the 1994 Australian Grand Prix and the 1997 European Grand Prix. And you're right, thus far this is a seriously minor incident. Should we have an article on Schumacher's pass of Alonso on the last lap at Monaco this year? That had a more concrete effect on the rules for this season. Or how about Webber and Vettel's collision at the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix? Didn't that result in a change to the safety car rules too? Examples of incidents that result in tweaks to the rules are pretty common. 4u1e (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. There are a dozen examples that you could cite of controversial incidents that do not have pages of their own - Adelaide 1994, Jerez 1997, Japan 2007, Belgium 2008, Monaco 2010, Istanbul 2010 (given the Red-Bull-are-favouring-Vettel conspiracy theory). This is not a notable event: it happened, and action has been taken to correct it; the rules relating to the safety car have been changed. Fernando Alonso has admitted that his emotions got the better of him and apologised. As far as most on the grid are concerned, the issue has been put to bed. The only person who stands out as objecting to it is Luca di Montezemolo, and even he's gone quiet. The only reason the page exists in the first place is because Ferrari over-reacted to the incident. There is nothing this page does that cannot be achieved by the race report page. Sure, we can add a few extra lines into that page, but I can't justify the existence of this one. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here exists that can't be sufficiently dealth with by (at most) a paragraph in the race article as others have already pointed out. As is, it just looks like a POV fork. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~ The race should be invalidated for serious errors by the race direction and the inconsistency of the rules of Formula 1. The problem was not only the illegally passing of the safety car or that it took the stewards twenty minutes to settle on a verdict, but that the safety car was incredibly deployed onto the circuit in front of Hamilton and behind Vettel. From what I remember this is the first time something like that happens in Formula 1, so: keep it and also add (at least) a couple of sections in the race article! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the race results should be invalidated, then the page is only worth keeping if the actually are. "Should have happened" is not a case for creating a Wikipedia page. Either it happened, or it didn't. How do you propose rewriting the article to a) retain a neutral point of view, whilst b) pointing out that the race results "should have" been considered null and void? It simply cannot be done because b) is simply an opinion, and Wikipedia isn't the place for opinions dressed as fact. Unless more is made of the incident - and so far, nothing has been (and it's unlikely to, given that the world has moved on) - then there is no reason to keep the article around. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Lotus' technical director Mike Gascoyne stated exactly what I said, and it is a very serious problem that never happened before. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gascoyne certainly didn't say the race result should be invalidated. He did say that the affair was the unforeseen result of changes to the safety car rules, but that Charlie Whiting did all that he had to and could have done in the situation (e.g. here). If there's an argument that the race result should be invalidated, that should be cited properly. Our own personal opinion on how the race should be run is not a justification for keeping. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I think you are confused as to what wikipedia's role is. It is not to record what should be, not to analyse and draw judgement, but to record what is and what did. Whatever Mike Gascoyne might have said is certainly not justification for a separate article, as the chief of Lotus Racing he was not directly involved in the incident and his opinion is no more valid than any of the hundreds of other opinions within the F1 paddock. If you want to express your own personal opinion there are many blog and forum based options to allow you to do that. --Falcadore (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete ~ This is not an important enough event to get its own article. The race report provides ample opportunity to address this issue. Every controversy does not warrant a page on its own. There were many racing events before this and there will be many after this. Senna-Prost crash at Suzuka, Hamilton's overtake at Spa, and 2007 Brazilian GP fuel Temp irregularity are just a few from a huge list of controversies that don't have an article. I think this is a POV push by Ferrari fans. Those who are suggesting that this article should be kept to fan the flame of Hamilton-Alonso rivalry, should know that Wikipedia is not a collection news. Sumanch (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge - With 2010 European Grand Prix. This is a small squabble within the sport that does not have enough relevance to a common user to have its own dedicated page. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2010 European Grand Prix. This storm in a teacup isn't notable enough for its own article. Besides, it is an intrinsic part of the events of the 2010 European Grand Prix and so should be summarised there. Pyrop e 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as recentism and as per most other contributors. This is not a major scandal in F1 history. It got coverage in the immediate aftermath of the event thanks to Ferrari's reaction, and has caused a relatively minor change in the rules of a sport whose rules change frequently anyway. It's not like football or rugby where the rules are fairly constant: Formula One makes significant changes to its rules every year, so a minor change like this is nothing particularly special. There's no lasting notability, no information that cannot better and more neutrally be covered by 2010 European Grand Prix and 2010 Formula One Season. This article should thus be deleted. Pfainuk talk 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. —fetch ·comms 16:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire (Doctor Who)

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

Mostly unreferenced (one primary source) with little or no real world relevance. Consists entirely of plot fragments and trivia. Corporation Cart (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- mostly unsourced plot summary and in-universe trivia. I'm sure there's a Doctor Who wiki that would love this stuff, but it does not belong here. Reyk _YO! 10:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The info should be pared down and added to the List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens article. MarnetteD | Talk 18:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree that this article consists of mostly trivia and plot reiteration, agree that it should be merged to the list of creatures featured in the franchise. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some (but probably not all) of this to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. Independent notability not there, but it would be a welcome addition to that page. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a good compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalkan Card Sorting

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

Recently made-up card game. Sadly, I cannot see any way of bending the rules to speedy this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom, this is a HOWTO at best and Hoax/MADEUP at worst. There was debate about adding articles like this to the Speedy criteria, but I don't believe it went anywhere - maybe it should've. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete Too bad it couldn't be speedied. Maybe it could have been prodded. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Creation of this AfD conflicted with the article's speedy deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification rape

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

Offensive neologism that is not mentioned in reliable sources. APK whisper in my ear 11:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rename to The Transport Museum, Wythall. Nominator has withdrawn the deletion nomination in favor of this solution for which there is unanimous support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Trust

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

~~Local charity, that fails WP:ORG, in that what coverage that exists is limited to local sources and nothing significant; no Gnews hits. Codf1977 (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)~~ happy to withdraw in fav of rename. Codf1977 (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Transport Museum, Wythall and expand. The Trust is the owner of the collection, the manager of the Transport Museum and a licensed bus operator.[37] Corporation Cart (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to The Transport Museum, Wythall (which redirects to it), modifying the intro in an obvious fashion. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL has gnews hits.) Occuli (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to The Transport Museum, Wythall per Occuli and Corporation Cart. Jeni ^(talk) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. The museum has enough coverage to bump it over the notability bar. [38], [39], [40], and [41] for example. -- Whpq (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Clearly notable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable museum, with a significant collection. If the nominator had searched under the museum's name (or even just for B&M buses) they'd have found any amount of coverage. Neutral on rename, as the redirect covers both and the "Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus" part of the name is a bit more distinctive than the relatively anonymous "transport museum". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as The Transport Museum, Wythall. Had a Heritage Lottery Fund grant of nearly a million pounds, which implies notability. Rwendland (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as The Transport Museum, Wythall. No lack of notability and available references. IMHO another cqse of drive-by tagging.--Kudpung (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - if look at the Find sources above - NO GNews hits, and as I said in the nom only other sources were local in nature the charity does fail WP:ORG. Codf1977 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't look very far, if you looked at all for WP:BEFORE. How about the Birmingham government site, and a couple of newspapers. Ready when you are...--Kudpung (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ged UK 05:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Football Association

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

Governing body for major indoor football competitions. Lack of independant evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a well-written article. However, I've searched for several of the competitions listed in the article, and it only shows this page - which makes me think that it's a hoax. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with DitzyNizzy; I also checked board members and the president, with no evidence that they exist as such. The website provided also appears to be a deadlink. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 04:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if not a hoax, then it's certainly non-notable. Giant Snowman 04:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically, it doesn't exist. Neither link works, Google gives virtually no hits other than the article itself and even the "Logos" are stored on Commons as the author's own work. I'm also worried about this user's other creation, Kartelon Tanga, which has three broken links as sources... Alzarian16 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur, there's no evidence that this association even exists. As an aside, I've PRODed Kartelon Tanga as a probable hoax. Bettia (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 (Hoax) - No sources to be found, source on File:IFA Logo.png suspect (Own work) and Logo has "similarities" to FIFA ones such as File:2010 FIFA World Cup logo.svg have tagged it WP:CSD#G3. Codf1977 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that www.ifahome.org does not have a Whois record nor does www.ifafanzone.com (see here).Codf1977 (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I can smell a strong odor of hoax here. This logo seems to me like it was made-up in some graphic editing program like Paint. Those ones too: [42] and [43] - they just remind me a lot of my own attempts to make cool drawings on the computer :). Maashatra11 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as a hoax per the research above and per the lack of reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Cheerleaders Exposed

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

Promotional-looking writeup for non-notable movie. Dead AVN source may be the listing at http://www.avn.com/movies/10589.html . / edg ☺ ☭ 11:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC) edg ☺ ☭ 11:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I well remember the tabloid-friendly real-life incident to which this article refers, but I find no substantial press coverage or other indication that this release was notable at all. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate superpowers

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

{{{text}}}Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather - this list is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization which violates WP:NOTDIR. It also contains original research, which violates WP:NOR - I can't verify any of the claims concerning superpower manipulation in third party sources. Note that Superpower manipulation in fiction is not an encyclopaedic topic. Claritas § 10:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator misapplies WP:WAX. Manipulating superpowers is not a cross-characterization because the two topics, superpowers and the manipulation of others' superpowers, are clearly related. Unlike other lists, this one is actually a compound list, well put together and laid out, which lists five distinct sub-characteristics of superpower manipulation. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the sub-characteristics are pure original research, and "relatedness" isn't a determination of whether two topics are cross-categorisable. Claritas § 18:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom. This is a cross-characterization because the two separate topics haven't received discussion as a single topic in reliable sources, thus leading to a list compiled through original research. Them From Space 17:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to slowly nominate all of Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability? Fences&Windows 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to nominate another three or four, and if they are all deleted, I'll batch nominate the rest. Claritas § 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batch nomming the category may not be a great idea since some of the articles may be notable (List of fictional characters who can fly sticks out here) and at least one (List of fictional parasites) appears to be miscategorized. Batch nominations oftentimes end in a no consensus or a directive to renominate the articles individually since the debates can get bogged down in minutiae with editors giving split decisions or casting procedural votes. Unless the articles are all formated the same, with a single main editor and similar history, a batch nom won't be worth it. Them From Space 22:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I only intend to batch nom lists with titles in the format List of fictional characters who can manipulate x. I understand the issues with batch-nomming lists which aren't very closely related. Claritas § 15:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still dubious -- for some of those, critical/scholarly material can be found. I strongly recommend one at a time, just to keep things on the rails. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take them one by one for the time being. Claritas § 14:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator on every point. This list is crufty original research. I also think the advice given here is good, and that this list fails points 1,2,3,4,8 and 10. Reyk _YO! 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Tavix | Talk 03:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Along with the other "List of characters with Superpower X" pages where "Superpower X" does not have an independent article. --erachima talk 06:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some weak Keep votes push this into NC territory. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Romans

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

List of fictional characters which violates WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR -arguably un-encyclopaedic cross-categorization - as per WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Armenians and WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders Claritas § 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's trivial to find sources for this such as Ancient Rome in English fiction romantic and modern, Ancient Rome in the English novel, The Classical Roman Name in Historical Fiction, etc. Not that one needs sources for obvious omissions like Ben Hur. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I wholeheartedly endorse what Claritas says. Also, considering how often Rome appears in fiction it's clear that there should be many, many, many, many entries. Therefore this list can only ever be too incomplete to be useful or too sprawling and unmaintainable to be useful ie. listcruft one way or the other. Reyk _YO! 23:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The size of a list, or whether its incomplete or not, is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT. This would be a useless and unwieldily list if completed, which it never would be. Categories address this issue in a much better way. It's just WP:LISTCRUFT. Verbal chat 13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List allow more information than categories, although no shortage of space, so no reason not to have both. Dream Focus 16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its gets coverage, and thus it meets all requirements for a Wikipedia article. Colonel Warden has listed books about this topic, and added references to the article. Dream Focus 16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:N - "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT".Claritas § 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think the arguments above are trying to express that it would be impractical (or nearly impossible) to actually complete such a list, and furthermore, if it ever were completed, it would be so large as to be useless and unwieldy. It is currently not that large, but it is also vastly incomplete, with virtually no chance at ever becoming complete. Also, Claritas' links to past AfD's show a clear precedent in these types of articles. SnottyWong ^comment 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^comment 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by User:Colonel Warden in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. The nominator's reading of WP:NOTDIR would preclude any list from being formed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please allow me time and I will ensure that the article is better referenced. Also, if there are articles such as List of fictional politicians etc, why should there not be an article for fictional Romans? --Crablogger (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It might be something to do with the fact that I haven't got round to nominating List of fictional politicians for deletion yet. Claritas § 11:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now, but discuss serious cleanup and pruning concerns. I don't understand at all the claim that this is an "unencyclopedic cross-categorization"; those are just words—naked assertion of opinion—until someone substantively explains why the very concept of the list is somehow invalid. I see nothing in any of the acronyms invoked (WP:SALAT, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO) that would compel or counsel the deletion of this list. The topic seems straightforward and simple enough, and there certainly is no shortage of notable examples. So the only real concern I can identify here is a meaningful threshold for what fictional Romans should be included. The list at present includes, for example, unseen "characters" from Monty Python's Life of Brian who exist only for the purpose of joke names. There's also an issue of how to deal with fictionalized characters, where perhaps nothing more than a name or basic historical role is kept but the rest is pure invention (cf. Titus Pullo & Lucius Vorenus in the HBO Rome TV series). Maybe the only practical way to organize this content is indirectly, through Fiction set in the Roman empire, if this list cannot exist without blowing up to every name mentioned in any work of fiction set in Ancient Rome. But I'd like to see that discussion before coming to that conclusion rather than just a diarrhea of acronyms. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The argument that this material is best served by a category is a sieve as individual list entries, while sourced do not have their own articles. What would go in the category? The WP:SALAT arguments, while interesting fail to address the entire intent of the section. For example the last sentence in the section reads: …be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Shouldn’t those that chose to delete it argue why it doesn’t. The final argument that I find especially troublesome is this one repeated by several editors: …if it ever were completed, it would be so large as to be useless and unwieldy. It is currently not that large, but it is also vastly incomplete, with virtually no chance at ever becoming complete. This says I guess that if the knowledge on any given subject is too large we delete that knowledge or if we can’t complete that knowledge we delete that knowledge. If individual entries are otherwise notable, the number of those entries are irrelevant for deletion purposes. Articles that grow beyond a practical size limit, can be refactored into more managable sub-topics—we do it all the time. This list is no different.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to 2006 FIFA World Cup#Team rankings (non-admin closure) -- Lear's Fool 07:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup full team ranking

2006 FIFA World Cup full team ranking

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

Article is obsolete with creation of 2006 FIFA World Cup statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mltinus (talk • contribs) 11:45, 7 July 2010

Redirect to ~~2006 FIFA World Cup statistics#Team rankings~~ 2006 FIFA World Cup#Team rankings per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect be bold! Lugnuts (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 04:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 04:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, but note that there's no AfD tag on this article at present, which should probably be fixed soon to avoid an "Improper nomination" close. Alzarian16 (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. Redirect to where? And if the redirect target page is gone, what's the point of this nomination now? — Timneu22 · talk 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems all the information has been moved to 2006 FIFA World Cup, so the redirect would now be to 2006 FIFA World Cup#Team rankings as suggested by Armbrust above. This article is still redundant. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2006 FIFA World Cup#Team rankings. Nfitz (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silkheart Records

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

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

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

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

Non notable record company - fails WP:CORP ONLY claim to any form of notability is one of inheritance through signed bands. Codf1977 (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Silkheart Records operates in the rarified space of free jazz and improvised music, where it is a significant influence. See for example their crucial role with Charles Gayle in his biographies at AllAboutJazz and Allmusic. Another online article says "Sweden’s Silkheart Records was partially responsible for the reemergence of Ware (along with other musicians such as Charles Gayle, William Hooker and Other Dimensions in Music) in the late 1980’s." [44] AllyD (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something from the AllAboutJazz and Allmusic refs they are just mentions "In the late Eighties Silkheart Records recorded three discs" and "Gayle recorded a series of albums for the Swedish-based Silkheart label" I agree that the www.jazztalent.com ref is more than just a mention, however is is not what one would call significant. So I still don't see how Silkheart Records meets WP:CORP.Codf1977 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per AllyD. Furthermore, I am not sure that WP:INHERITED is a fair criterion for any record label article: few, if any, record labels are notable, in and of themselves, minus their artistic rosters (e.g. what makes Atlantic Records notable, their logo?). In 1991, Forced Exposure suggested that Silkheart "could easily be considered for the new ESP-Disk throne." (Source: Johnson, Jimmy (1991). "CHARLES GAYLE QUARTET: Always Born CD; CHARLES GAYLE TRIO: Homeless CD [album reviews]". Forced Exposure (17). Waltham, Massachusetts: Forced Exposure, Inc.: 87. ISSN 0893-5599.). And yes, this was in the context of a Charles Gayle review. But there were other Silkheart artists: e.g. Dennis González‎ recorded at least four albums for the label ("part of a determined effort to wrest creative initiative back from New York and the West Coast," The Penguin Guide to Jazz), and Charles Brackeen (whom González‎ had coaxed out of retirement) recorded three albums for Silkheart. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CORP is immaterial and I take issue with its repeated dredging up in AfDs on labels. The label satisfies WP:MUSIC's idea of a label with a significant history and roster. It is a culturally significant jazz label. Chubbles (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close ; article has been moved to OTV (Lebanon) and there are no outstanding valid criteria for deletion. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orange_TV

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Orange TV

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

OTV Lebanon lost a lawsuit against Orange Telecom http://www.orange.com, thus the name of the TV is now changed from "Orange TV" to "OTV" only, OTV is not allowed to use the name or color Orange, check the website http://www.otv.com.lb , the Page name and url on wikipedia contain the word Orange, this should be either changed to OTV or deleted right away. for confirmation you can contact [email protected] Hagop.man (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have been bold and redirected it to OTV (Lebanon). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinless twin

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

Contested prod, the reason was:

the article describes something that is real (twins do die) but does not distinguish very well it from other similar phenomena, particularly death of other immediate family members. In sentences like "Some twinless twins feel guilt that they have survived when their twin did not. Others may feel the need to live for two and do the things their twin cannot. Children and sometimes even adults who lose a twin can feel displaced within their family." 'twin' could very easily be replaced with 'sibling'. In "This is particularly so within families who have placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that they were twins." 'twins' could just as easily be replaced with 'siblings' or 'the same gender' or 'nice'.
there is no verification of the existence of being a twinless twin as a very different sort of grief or bereavement requiring its own article. Grief does not even link to articles specific to the loss of a sibling, parent or spouse.

I remain neutral on this case as I was the one who deleted it in the first place. Tone 08:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Small text[reply]

Comment It's completely unsourced and looks like a personal-opinion essay - what would be needed to save it would be some reliable sources showing that this a notable concept. (I haven't had time to look for possible sources myself, so I'm undecided - I'll leave it as just a comment for now). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- good points made above suggest that such an article in unencyclopedic and exists as a mere repository for listing twinless twins. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to hurry and start the ~~Orphaned child~~ Brotherless sister article before this precedent is deleted. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident that there is an article Orphan which matches this one. (Linking before checking.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article could use a section on grief and contains a list of famous orphans, as well as orphans in literature. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brotherless sister would redirect to Only child, so it might be to late to write that one. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep This is really about the feelings of people who have lost their twin. As shown by the websites linked these feelings are real. What is needed is for secondary sources to take note of this. If they have not yet then an article is not now possible by WP:Notable. But still it is a legitimate topic and an article could be written later when sources are available. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are over 100 hits on google books http://www.google.com/search?q="Twinless twin"&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp for "Twinless twin" they all seem to be used in the manor outlined in the article and appear to support the article in general. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JeepdaySock; there are plenty of possible sources online. COI disclosure: I am a multiple. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - legitimate topic for an article, which has been the subject of a considerable amount of attention from multiple independent reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, look at the Google Scholar results. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources show that the concept certainly exists, but doesn't show why it's notable. Possibly merge to Survivor guilt. SnottyWong ^talk 19:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 19:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by User:Bearian in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Comment A virtually identical page was deleted in 2008. [45] --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu calendar

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

non-notable discontinued software package, no third-party sources, article was being used to drive traffic to hacktolive website, i.e. spam Yworo (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a contested prod. I couldnt find any sources in Google News Archive or Google Books. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

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

I do not see any evidence that this role-playing game meets our notability requirements. Notability was asked for in 2008, and self-published sources were added. These do not show notablity. Third party sources were asked for again in February 2010, and there are still no third party sources. We require this to show notability - without notability Wikipedia might as well be considered an advertising host. Miami33139 (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would constitute notability in your opinion? Would EN World, and/or RPG.net constitute notable sources? TomeWyrm (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greg Costikyan penned source on Play This Thing. Someone another 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award winning game system. Some references can be found at [46]. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with Hobit - as far as I'm concerned, awards confer notability. BOZ (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another concur - I think the mentioned sources are pursuasive and it's def. a high-quality product that has a market - sales numbers would be cool, but they're probably not as easy to come by compared to music titles. Hekerui (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—As small RPG shops go, this one has some notability. There are independent references available, which seems to be the main issue with satisfying the notability requirement.[47][48][49]—RJH (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Extremely significant and popular RPG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article badly needs better references, but the awards and references listed above clearly show that it is a noteworthy role-playing game. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poorly written and sourced, but the game is definitely notable. zorblek (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (full disclosure: I am somewhat a fan of the game, but I'm going to try and keep this argument un-biased by that). The ENnies are the biggest awards in RPG gaming, to my knowledge. Having the alpha version of a product win a "gold" award in the ENnies should establish at least basic notability on its own. That Geekdad (Wired) covered it is also significant, Granted, the article needs work. The article needs a lot of work. But I feel that the Wired article and ENnie firmly establish notability, as both are entirely independent sources. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Suburbs (Arcade Fire album). Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Used to Wait

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

Unreleased single whose notability isn't any greater than the other two unreleased singles, which do not have articles.

Ishwasafish^{click here!!!}

03:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to The Suburbs (Arcade Fire album)...until the song is actually released, anyway. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent album. The song has no notability yet and may not have any in the future. --JD554 (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Thompson (drummer)

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

The subject is a session drummer. Unable to locate sufficient reliable sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. His name being so common and the name of the most notable band that is mentioned on the page, the Cure, being such a common word obviously muddies the water a bit but I'm satisfied that my search was thorough enough. The page was suggested to be speedied under WP:A7 in 2008 but refused. J04n(talk page) 02:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per J04n.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Kimber Seward

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

as per WP:ONEVENT for surviving Titantic disaster. he gets a few gnews hits but not indepth [50], and [51]. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If the part about 'He served as the chairman of the committee investigating the sinking' can be expanded, that seems like a pretty important role post-disaster. Morhange (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His reliable source coverage runs from the 1912 to a New York Times obituary and beyond his death in several books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he warranted a New York Times obituary. The fact (which I presume to be true but can't verify) that he was the chairman of a committee that investigated The Titanic 's sinking puts his notability beyond doubt. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RMS_Titanic#Investigations into the RMS Titanic disaster per WP:ONEEVENT. I can't see how he's notable apart from having chaired the investigatory committee, and the committee should be covered in the main article. Claritas § 11:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~I agree with Richard Cavell above.~~ SteveStrummer (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing the reason for my Keep because I just did some very revelatory investigation. Looking closely at the given sources, I see that the person cited in the Times obituary (as well as Who's Who and other sources) is clearly a different man than the one who is said to have been on the Titanic. Please see the fuller explanation on Talk:Frederick Kimber Seward, but note my vote is now a Strong Keep because this long-lived article seems to have infected Encyclopedia: Titanica and many other wiki-mirrors. I believe it's necessary to set the record straight by rewriting this biography according to the facts given by the Times obituary (and any other valid sources). SteveStrummer (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for the detective work there. First, let's understand that in those days, typos and alternative spellings of names were not uncommon. It's still possible it's the same guy. But whatever the truth is, it should be here for all to see. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you about the spelling differences, but the crucial fact here is that none of the reliable sources call him a Titanic survivor, an omission that is virtually inconceivable. The "Frederick Seward" who survived the Titanic must be a different man entirely, or he is a myth.... SteveStrummer (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have changed this article extensively since yesterday. Please view the new article as well as the Talk page before voting or closing. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the original US Senate inquiry documents list Mr. Frederick K. ~~Steward~~Seward as someone who survived the sinking.[52] The survivor was travelling first class, which would be consistent with him being a 34 year old lawyer from that era. The survivor gave his UK address as the Savoy Hotel in London, which would be consistent with him having travelled to London temporarily. The Titanic was travelling to New York City, so it would make sense for our man Seward to be on it. I still reckon it might be the same guy. Note also, one of the Titanic crew was Wilfrid Seward, a Second Class Pantry Steward, who gave a UK address and might be related or not.[53]

I can't get that Senate report link to open but I'm going to keep trying. But did you say Frederick K. Steward, or is that a typo? SteveStrummer (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link opens for me. It's Seward, sorry. Wilfrid Seward was a steward, and that's what threw me. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to others: Taking the discussion to User talk:Richardcavell#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Kimber Seward as to whether it's the same guy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been settled: I've edited the article (again) and provided new sources that show that Frederic aka Frederick is indeed a Titanic survivor, and was indeed the chairperson of the survivors' committee which honored RMS Carpathia. So: for its original reasons, my "Keep" vote still stands. :) SteveStrummer (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for me too. Note also that he was the nominated claimant in a class action (or whatever such things were called in 1912) against the operator of the Titanic. This guy is surely notable now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single event theory. Melanesian obsession (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except he has coverage from 1912 to 1943 which means he doesn't fit that Wikipedia rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several of the sources now in the article don't even mention his surviving the Titanic, but instead focus on other aspects of his life. That suggest that he's notable for more than one thing so WP:ONEVENT doesn't look like an issue. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were always there, SteveStrummer removed several references when he thought that there were two people: A Titanic guy, and a lawyer guy. His NYT obit was the first reference added, and it doesn't mention the Titanic at all, that what confused SteveStrummer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as no concensus; this article has been under AfD almost continuously since 23 May 2010 over this and 2 previous AfD's all started by the same user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Al Fand training camp

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

Fails WP:N WP:GNG. All previous Afd's have shown this and i think nobody doubts this fact. So i do believe that consensus for delete has been reached. I think the only point left is to discuss if there should be an redirection. A redirection to Afghan training camp could be misleading as we do not have WP:RS that verifies that this camp was an militant training camp or that it was linked to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Al this is not verified. I suggest to redirect to Khalid al-Asmr as all (the little) information of the article is covered there. IQinn (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets run a little test using the WP Notability-General Notability Guidelines, shall we?

Significant Coverage: Source addresses the subject directly in detail (marginally), and has no original research. Pass
Reliable: Sources have editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. Pass
Sources: Has reliable sources. Pass
Independent of the Subject: Does not include sources affiliated with the subject. (Yes and no. It references a single transcript, from the US Military. However, the document was obtained from an independent source. Marginal Pass
Presumed: Significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption that the subject is suitable for inclusion. Pass

Granted, the article needs improvement, but it passes WP:GNG. Keep. --ANowlin: talk 02:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is false. And putting it in bold won't make it true.
Significant Coverage: One mentioning by one source does not add up to Significant Coverage. Fail.
Sources: Has only one Source that mention the camp with one sentence. “The detainee attended the al Fand training camp.”. No other information. No other sources. Fail.
Presumed: There is no Significant coverage. Just one sentence in one source. Fail.
Fails WP:GNG The article can not be improved as there are no sources since many years. You found new sources? Please show them to us. Wikipedia is not a crystal WP:BALL. IQinn (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that you are most likely relative new to Wikipedia so i would also like to point you to WP:VERIFY in addition to the other policies that i have mentioned. IQinn (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that basically nothing is known about the camp is an indicator that we probably shouldn't have an article about it. Claritas § 10:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge - I am an inclusionist, but if there are no sources, we can't do anything. I had a look and found nothing obvious; of course if something comes out, I am welcome to review my !vote. If the single source can be used to provide coverage in another article I would be happy. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in RSs. Fails WP:N nableezy - 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Per ANowlin.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but your !vote looks a bit like WP:ILIKEIT to me rather than based on real policies. Afd's are decided by the strength of the arguments rather than voting. It has been shown that ANowlin's arguments are false. So you might explain yourself where your !vote is based on. IQinn (talk)

Not at all. Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of "per", as used above. What it means, in longer hand, is "as stated in greater detail by the esteemed editor ANowlin, who articulated the same reasons I have in mind in such an erudite manner that it would be a waste not only of my time but of all other readers for me to repeat what he said, whether in precisely the same words or in slightly different words of much the same import". WP:ILIKEIT, of course, "looks" quite different. As to what I do like, by the way, I would include the fact that both the New York Times and The Washington Post, two publications on the cusp of RS-hood, have mention of it. You've now made a number of mis-statements at this AfD. First, as to what my !vote looks like. Second, your above "it has been shown" statement. Third, your "I'm sorry" statements -- if you are so sorry, I can't understand why you continue to make mis-statements and mis-characterizations. Fourth, your various assumptions in the nomination, as to what I (and other editors) doubt, or view worthy of discussion, etc. Happy Fourth. (and please take this as advice as to the meaning of "per" at AfDs where I am !voting).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to list the sources that give this supposed training camp anything more than a trivial mention, also known as "significant coverage"? (and the NYTimes does not "mention it", the only thing I can find from them is a copy of the Combatant Status Review Board's summary of evidence, which is not exactly the same thing as the NYTimes covering it) nableezy - 23:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it would be helpful if you could list these sources. You just added this reference to the article what is an unreliable source that just mirrors the Wikipedia article. See also WP:CIRCULAR. I do not believe that anybody can claim "significant coverage" based on such sources. I removed this from the article. IQinn (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have preferred to see the previous AfD to have taken to DRV (in that AfD even the article's creator has agreed that there is not enough coverage for the stand-alone article on the topic to exist, so it really should have been closed as "delete"). As it is, there is nothing in the nature of significant and detailed coverage of this camp by independent sources. At most we have a few brief mentions. As noted above, the NYT ref does not really qualify as "coverage" by NYT - rather they posted a copy of some official documents - certainly not the same as if a journalist wrote an article at least mentioning the camp. Moreover, there is a long-established WP convention that judicial documents, such as trial transcripts, court opinions etc, do not qualify as "coverage" for WP:GNG purposes, even though they may be used for WP:V purposes. I think the same principle applies to official judicial documents like the Combatant Status Review Board transcripts. Nsk92 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated, and interesting, and along the lines (to the extent I agree) why I !voted week keep rather than keep or strong keep. (BTW -- perhaps a merge should be considered as an alternative, if there is a likely merge-to article ... that would then be my second choice). I believe there is a stark difference in a subject as to which the NYT and WSJ publishes an article linking to it. Such a subject is surely far more notable than that to which the NYT and WSJ provide no such link. Were a court case to be the only "coverage", I would agree with your above comments. Where the "court" is the CSRB, I have a different view -- those "cases" are all, IMHO, notable, and differ greatly from just any court case, which are of far greater number and could of course include such non-notable disputes as my neighbor's dog urinating on my property.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Iquinn correctly observed, there is in fact a grand total of one source (and even that one is a judicial transcript, not a news-article), that even mentions this camp, and even that mention consists of only a single sentence. This is miles away from justifying a weak keep in terms of notability, and, IMO, does not merit even a redirect, not to mention a merge. Nsk92 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Anowlin and Sulmues correctly observed ... we differ. But I hear your viewpoint.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point we differ in is that your arguments are not always based on sources or facts. Now you come out and claim the camp is an al Qaeda camp??

To make this clear (what has been made clear already):This here is the only source and information we know about the camp in the whole universe.

To continuously claim that this would be "significant coverage" and now to claim that the camp was an al Qaeda camp based on this source is simply false and harms our reputation as an reliable encyclopedia. Sure i know you are a long term contributor and i am sure you did it in good faith but i urge you to be more careful as this all is basically an allegation against a living person and to wrongly associate somebody with al Qaeda is an serious issue.

I removed this from the article. IQinn (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per convincing argumentation of user:Anowlin. You may rename it as a hoax, if you prove it as such, but the article should stay. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is rich: "You may rename it as a hoax, if you prove it as such". Whatever happened to WP:V and all that? Nsk92 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the "convincing argumentation of user:Anowlin", you should read Iquinn's rebuttle below Anowlin's argument more carefully. There is a grand total of one source that mentions the camp at all, and even that mention consists of a single sentence. This is far far below satisfying any reasonable notability threshold. Nsk92 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT#NEWS seems relevant. Hype about interrogations and (quasi-)court room dramas can be encyclopedic if sourced by multiple, independent, third-party sources. This subject does not have that. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor mention in a minor primary citation. as close to the same encyclopedic value as a hoax as you could get Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- For some reason the wiki-id User:Iqinn, who nominated this article for its 2nd, 3rd and 4th {{afd}} did not inform the article creator (that's me) of this nomination. I realize the {{afd}} has almost run its course. However, given that I did not have an opportunity to participate, I am requesting now that it be relisted, not closed. I wrote to the administrator who closed the 3rd {{afd}} with concerns I had about whether the individual who made the 3rd nomination should have initiated a 4th nomination less than an hour after the closure of the 3rd nomination. I asked them if the nominator shouldn't have contacted them for a fuller explanation, and if they weren't satisfied with that explanation initiated a review at {{drv}}. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with this AfD being relisted rather than closed. This may end up at DRV anyway, but a clearer picture of consensus would certainly be useful. Nsk92 (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do the nominations with Twinkle and you should automatically get an notification. For sure you got one for the 2th and 3th but it seems Twinkle notification does not work always and i know you are subscribed to the article. Why don't you just make your point? You know the case and the arguments have been clearly laid out here and in the discussions before. I am sorry but after all that disruptive fillibustering i can only say. No good reason given for re-listing. IQinn (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

P.S. There are current discussions about text-merging page Al Fand training camp to page Afghan training camp. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear despite impassioned minority arguments. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Baker (producer)

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

No third party sources provided or found. Fails to meet WP:N Active Banana (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Unable to find third party sources. Dspradau → talk 04:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The request to remove this article follows a day-long "edit war" by user Active Banana, whose talk page shows a long history of aggravating other Wikipedia users by aggressive data deletion. This should not be allowed or condoned. He has already been instrumental in removing another valid article for a "Rob Baker (guitarist)" - the lead for the band "Tragically Hip" which is a well known band -- and so many other examples. I've tried to link one article which shows Rob Baker, producer, quoted in the Los Angeles Times and he removed it. I've tried to link a video which supports the "Tonight Show" element in use, as well as the show credits, and he removed it. He continually questions the "notability" of this person despite reasonable evidence which supports this. This amounts to vandalism, abuse, and even harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyQ123 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC) — JonnyQ123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Hello, I am Rob Baker. I don't quite understand the problem here. Jon knows me pretty well and is a decent source for information himself, but if the references are in question then by all means, Google my name connected to the John Kerwin Show, or the Vision Awards, or look at my IMDb... and there are many other references here and about. Many newspapers are on the John Kerwin Show official page and several mention my name. I don't claim to have done great things, but the few things which are mentioned on my entry here I am proud of. I find it a bit offensive to have them maligned by someone whose only qualifications are that he has a Wikipedia account, and whose identification is a photograph of a pile of bananas. There is nothing contentious or controversial within my entry that should inspire or provoke such aggressive actions to remove it, and surely one can connect the dots via the available information and see that nothing there is overtly salesmanlike or boastful. It is a simple statement of a few facts. I'd love to mention a few other things which could support the cause of blindness, but most credits and references for those projects shine the light on the blind founder of the organization, Helen Harris, which is fine. I worked there for six years and helped deliver aid to blind people and worked with pretty much all the film studios to create described films and TV programs for the blind to enjoy... but perhaps this is not notable. I'm also credited on motion pictures with well known talent involved. The talk show I've produced for four years airs all throughout Los Angeles on LA's official cable channel LA36 to all the millions of LA's cable households on five different systems, which is verifiable, and has over 2 million views on YouTube as well, which is verifiable. If this does not count toward notability, then there are scads of other YouTube people which should then be removed here, too. It's much easier to malign something than to do the work of the research, even just watching the shows or looking at the numbers and adding them on a calculator. It feels silly to come here and support my own page, but I really have to wonder... just what is the problem here? Is this someone's idea of a power play of some sort? Anyway, if further information is needed, I can perhaps upload photos of myself holding my awards or the mayor's commendation, or working on set with famous people... but it just seems plain silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raaawb (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC) — Raaawb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

explaining basic prinicples and off-topic stuff

Hi Rob. Nobody doubts you have done great things, but as long as they are not so great that a number of people independent of you write about you (not just mention your name but maybe interview you about your achievements) we will not keep an article about you. Once this is achieved, we will have to check whether there is verifiable proof for every claim that is made about you. And then, once it is verified, we will check it against our inclusion threshold. (You might want to follow the blue links that lead to the full-text policies.) We do not count YouTube video hits towards this, and the community is still discussing about the value of IMDb entries. --Pgallert (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Rob will not likely see your response. But the main point at hand, first of all, is whether the article ought to be deleted. The allegation regards "notability." The main substance of the article maintains that 1) Rob is the producer of this talk show; 2) Rob is a production executive credited on some motion pictures, and 3) Rob worked with the charity behind "The Vision Awards." First, the existence of the talk show is indisputable, and ample evidence exists to support that Rob has been its producer. Articles are posted on the "news" section of the show's website, notably the L.A. Times article and the L.A. Wave article and perhaps others, which name Rob within the text. There are dozens of episodes posted online which show his name in the credits roll at the end -- and likely many other sources exist to support this. If the show itself warrants an article - then certainly its producer does. It can also be easily verified that the show has featured notable guests including David Carradine, Steve Wozniak, Eric Roberts, Sean Young, Karen Black and so many others -- most of whom have their own Wikipedia entry. Notable, or not?

IMDb may be "being discussed" as a proper source, however bear in mind that their criteria is also staunchly rigid and works much like Wikipedia. Maybe even more rigid. The site supports the existence of the John Kerwin Show, the Vision Awards, and the Infinity Media films Rob is credited under. Many other credible sites have also relied upon that information and have carried it forward. If IMDb is NOT a proper source for Wikipedia -- then it isn't. "Being discussed" is not enough of a reason to dismiss it.

Then all you're left with is little bits and pieces, which have not been raised at issue. Articles about the Kerwin Show include the mention of the "Tonight Show" instance. The show's web site names the awards it has received, and it's not a far stretch to imagine that the show's producer may count those as his (he has physical awards with his name on them!). You can even look at his Facebook page at facebook.com/raaawb and see some photos from the show which include him in them. But, "notability" is the primary issue, and if you dismiss this article due to "not enough evidence" then someone isn't looking very hard at all.

The editor deleted links just minutes after they were posted, declaring "no mention of him on the site" -- but it would take more than mere minutes to locate those articles and read through them. Now come on -- "lack of evidence" should not be declared by someone who hasn't even bothered to check! My contention is that this editor is -- and I'm coining a new word for this -- an editerrorist on this site. He may even hold a grudge against people named Rob Baker -- as you can see, here he has taken a perfectly nice, informative article and "redirected" it -- essentially deleting it in its entirety -- about the Tragically Hip lead guitarist named Rob Baker: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Baker_(guitarist)&diff=342626470&oldid=342532915 Look now -- you'll see the article isn't live any more. The archive even mentions "liner notes" -- but I suppose an actual physical item means nothing if it's not online!

The existence of this deletion item is ONLY due to the fact that this person, Active Banana, saw fit to conduct himself as judge and jury -- as he has clearly done in countless other cases -- to the great detriment of this site. Pages and pages of edits, mostly deletions -- eliminating the hard, earnest work of so many people trying to support the heart and soul of this site's intent. Unfortunately, there seems to be little one can do to prevent this. This person set about, with vigor, to destroy this humble little entry on Wikipedia. I first tried to spruce up the article, but he kept coming back. If you can make "inline citations" from the sources I've mentioned, then great! How do you link to a motion picture or television credits roll? If it is his goal to help and "make better," then he should be working toward that end, not pinching off every little thing he sees that doesn't "comply." But I submit that this doesn't really need any further citations. It's a neat, clean article; it doesn't make any outrageous claims, and nothing is there which ought to offend anyone -- and best of all, its subject should, by all accounts, be considered "notable." This notice is the punitive action taken by that editor after engaging in an edit war all day long, and this needs to be recognized. He is vandalizing this, and many other articles and making Wikipedia a poorer place for his actions. What has he actually added to the site? HIS work is what I would not call "notable." Nor nobly intended. He should not be allowed to continue his editerrorism. JonnyQ123 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Striking second vote by JonnyQ123 --Pgallert (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From your comment "Rob will not likely see your response." it appears that you may have a personal connection with the subject of the article. I would like to point out WP:COI, our conflict of interest policy. As well as WP:NPA no personal attacks. Active Banana (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE JonnyQ123 has also !voted previously above. Active Banana (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed out the duplicate vote. --Pgallert (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On this site we discuss about articles, not about editors. The guitarist, btw, had a completely unsourced article which is not allowed. --Pgallert (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to assert notability. Also, the above targeting of the nominator by SPAs does not fill me full of joy... one brave monkey 14:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a producer, the notability guideline that probably fits best is WP:CREATIVE. I cannot see in which way he would pass that guideline. In its current shape the article cannot stay, and that a lot of other articles are in the same sorry state is no excuse -- they will be improved, or they will go. Rob Baker (producer) has two issues: Notability and Verifiability. For the former, may I quote from the Telly Award wp entry: "The Telly Awards web site lists thousands of winners annually." and "Winners are charged US$150 for their statue." I do not know about this award but this wording does not suggest to me that winning this award establishes lasting historic significance. For the latter issue, even for this (historically) small achievement there is no proof. Actually, there is no proof at all except the IMDb entry: the other two are a web site that does not mention the name Baker, and his MySpace profile. Had I come across this entry I would have nominated it on the spot, just like the OP did. --Pgallert (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom, the article promotes a near-notability, but IMDB, respectfully, does not seem to suggest the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Notability not even asserted.Toddst1 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- as above, not sure notability is even asserted, never mind established. No 3rd-party sourcing (except IMDB, which is of questionable value). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet threshold of WP:N. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Raeky above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

long rambling attempt to change the way AFD works and redifine WP:N collapsed

I wrote an admittedly long response to this, below, which has been collapsed but which primarily discusses the point of "notability." Here I wish to just point out the third-party reference parts: Is IMDb used regularly here as a source? Is being named, along with occupation established, in an L.A. Times front page article credible as a source? Is an actual screen roll of credits credible as a source? If so, then here are three decent third-party sources. If you are interested in this subject, then please read below. Thank you. JonnyQ123 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)— JonnyQ123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First, what seems to predominate here is a sense of interest in "smiting the buzzing bee" rather than a fully fair interest in the question at hand, which is whether this article reflects "notability" or not. I mention again that the existence of this AfD is clearly "punitive" in nature, if you were to review the edit history. I have tried to protect this article from being vandalized. I would hope that an editor's main intent would be to help and improve -- yet this editor kept tearing down, agressively fighting to assert his "right to do so," and finally marked it for deletion when he found opposition -- not because he originally thought it worthy of deletion. This seems far from the intent of this site. An editor who becomes an "auditor," seeking out the wrong and documenting it without really helping it -- would seem quite contrary to the site's intent. At no point did I notice anything "helpful" from this editor; only a destructive intent, further displayed by his aggressive behavior toward knocking this article down until finally marking it for deletion. People keep wanting to cite "rules," however if you're a veteran of the site, then you know the site's intent in that regard as well. ("Ignore the rules.") Beyond that, all that binds any of us here is a sense of what is fair.

So: It would seem that perhaps a sort of math might do some good here. Add up ideas in a column. See if a consensus of agreement can be reached.

The primary item within the article is "The John Kerwin Show," which has existed since 2001 and has featured many well-known celebrity guests. First: Is the show itself notable? Yes/No

Bearing in mind that a producer and writer of a TV show is of primary value to that show -- as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_producer - "The primary role of a television producer is to control all aspects of production, ranging from show idea development and cast hiring to shoot supervision and fact-checking. It is often the producer who is responsible for the show's overall quality and survivability," then in most normal circumstances, wouldn't a show's notability tend to also confer notability upon its producer? Yes/No

Then: Would a key credit on a well-recognized motion picture tend to offer a hint toward notability? Yes/No

Would a key credit on a well-recognized celebrity award show tend to offer a hint toward notability? Yes/No

Then: Is IMDb a relied-upon source for Wikipedia articles? Nevermind opinions about that -- is it actually and regularly used as a third-party source of information? Yes/No

Is being quoted by name and occupation in a front-page article in the Los Angeles Times reliable information as a third-party source? Yes/No

Is having one's name clearly displayed in the credit roll of a TV show or film a credible third-party source? Yes/No

(For these last three, if you answered "yes" -- then there's your third-party verification, three different ways!)

Tally up your "Yes" answers here. These would establish the weight of credibility toward "notability."

Then: Does the article offer any outlandish, incredible, or harmful claims? Yes/No

Does the article seem unclear or badly written? Yes/No Does the article fail to offer useful, relevant information for someone who is looking for it? Yes/No

Do you believe someone might be in any way disadvantaged by the existence of this article? Yes/No

Does the article seem overly serving of an agenda (setting aside the thought that most article subjects would like their entries to be "kind") beyond offering relevant information? Yes/No

Tally up your "No" answers here. If you answered "No" to most or all of these, then you should have no conscientious objections to its existence in principle.

Then: If you knew you could improve this article -- would you? Knowing that there indeed exists third-party sources to establish its credibility, but you would like to see them properly referenced here -- how might you do that? Wikipedia has a whole article about the viability of "offline sources," mainly stating that they should not be ignored. So, how do you reference a video containing relevant information if such links are frowned upon? How would you properly reference that L.A. Times article which is also third-party verification? How might you reference the content of a video which plays out other information mentioned in the article? (In specific, the Mayor's commendation or the "Tonight Show" event.) These videos actually DO exist online. In fact, dozens of episodes of The John Kerwin Show exist online via YouTube and other sites where the credit roll is clear. If you don't actually offer a link to the source, would you help the article succeed by knowing just how to footnote that information? (I will admit, I am not versed on footnoting here.)

If you tallied mostly "Yes" answers in the first group and "No" answers it the second group, then you should have a fair basis for a decision. Do you think I left any pertinent questions unasked? What are they? If you agree that the Kerwin show is notable, that the Vision Awards is notable, that the films mentioned in the article are notable -- and then that the person's role played within them was notable -- you should have a fair answer. At least, look at the overall weight of your answers to decide. Then answer the questions:

Should you punish the article because you don't like the behavior of its editor?

Would the community be better served if the article were to be deleted?

If you find any merit in the article's existence, knowing what you do now after studying this matter, would you be willing to help improve its faults so that it needs no further "notices" placed upon it?

There are other references, too. Rob has a Facebook page with photographs from the talk show, and a LinkedIn account containing a work history and references from people he worked with -- and quite possibly other useful web resources which might help this article.

Do you wish to destroy, or do you wish to build?

I will then apologize for any of my own behavior here which may have seemed disruptive or angry, and hope you will understand my interest in this matter. I felt something I had helped create was being attacked, and then I felt personally attacked. If it is the lot of editors to help the site find friendly, constructive and encouraging help -- then I hope you will display that in your thoughtful response to this.

Thank you for listening. JonnyQ123 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a crack, IMDB isn't considered a reliable source other then general basic information or filmography information, it's not used to established notability since the threshold to get listed on IMDB is virtually so low almost anyone can get listed there and theres virtually no oversight for accuracy of information. As for a LA Times article, (link please?), a passing mention in an article generally wouldn't be considered evidence for notability, the guideline, or threshold you need to meet is listed here (WP:CREATIVE), and so far we're not seeing anything that comes close to those guidelines. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of the LA Times (probably illegally hosted) [54] The "front page story" is an article about a change in laws about Public Access TV and Baker's coverage by/contribution to the article: As a producer of a local TV show he is quoted in two sentences, stating 1) There was no pre-notification of the change in laws, 2) He predicts that the change is the end of public access. (And there is a picture of the show that he is producing, but he is not identified in the image)Active Banana (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's really helpful, but the wikipedia article still fails WP:BIO/WP:CREATIVE as the Times article is in no way is the article about him. Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm keeping the issues straight here -- what it seems to boil down to is, "There's not enough proof, and (even if there is proof), he's not notable!" The mention of the Times article was to address the third-party issue. Any notability it might confer would be a bonus. IMDb listing and the videos of the shows themselves, likewise. Once you've established this, then it comes down to notability.

Wikipedia invites everyone here to just dig right in and start writing an article! It offers the "five pillars" and then further says, "ignore the rules" -- this is what you see when you arrive here. Everything else then, is just "guidelines." Seems silly for an article posted on Wikipedia, then, to be the be-and-end-all determinor of whether a person is "notable." Only common sense will guide that answer. Also seems silly to adopt a mindset that "the rules must be enforced strictly." Obviously everyone here knows that a large number of people listed here won't meet that set of guidelines -- which then creates another set of criteria to determine: "Is it reasonable enough to exist here?" You tell me -- what is the common sense answer to "is the producer of a notable 9-year-old TV show notable himself?" JonnyQ123 (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 pillars are not the end-all-be-all for the rules, and WP:IAR does not give you free license to put everything under the sun on Wikipedia. We have more guidelines, specifically, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:N, these are all CORE guidelines to how we operate here. Everyone plays under these rules, and we're not ganging up and twisting the rules to pick on you. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for one more thought then -- one of the categories he's listed within is "YouTube Producers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:YouTube_video_producers under which there are currently 143 listings. Should this category then not even exist? Or is he also notable within that category? The show is partner-channeled on YouTube, has millions of views, and likely most "YouTube personalities" could be called into question under the WP:NOT as well. But rather than squash those entries, consider whether this constitutes a different type of notability. Again, asking for a common sense rather than "rule-based" consideration here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyQ123 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to begin to pretend that your page is the only one currently in violation of WP:N guidelines, theres probably thousands, tens of thousands, it's a daunting task. But because other crap exists is not a defense for an AFD. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Forgetting all the drama, no/few reliable sources appear to exist, few google hits. Clear deletion candidate even if conflict of interest was not present. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing yet another rant of disruptive WP:SPA who is practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Attempting to summarize as concisely as possible. The article does reasonably fall within Wikipedia's guidelines -- and this is not just opinion as acceptable evidence and reasoning exists to substantiate this.

Two issues have been brought here -- first, verification, and second, notability. As has been pointed out earlier, the evidence offered toward verification does not seem to be in further dispute, but in summary: Articles exist at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/05/entertainment/et-publicaccess5 as well as http://www.thejohnkerwinshow.com/general_webdocs/WaveArticle.jpg which name Rob Baker as the producer of the John Kerwin Show. His IMDb page at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0048869/ details his credits on that show as producer and writer beginning in 2005. And, any number of complete episodes of the show are posted at http://www.youtube.com/johnkerwin2000 which include the credits roll at the end. Here is a specific episode link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9u5c20mPQ0 -- this is the Ed Asner/Kevin Sorbo/Keaton Simons episode from May, 2008 (including the monologue with contributions from former Tonight Show writers from each host). Rob's name in the credits appears at 27:20. You can also simply Google search Rob's name along with the Kerwin show and find many results, but these mentioned here should sufficiently establish "verification."

Then, as to "notability": The guidelines for this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia -- the #3 item under "creative professionals" states as follows: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_producer more fully details the role of a TV producer. A notable TV show is "a significant or well-known work." And the producer/writer of a TV show is a primary creator of that content. And further, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is well fulfilled by at least a dozen published articles about the show, including Emmy Magazine, Broadcasting & Cable Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times, among many others. (Of course the articles don't need to be referenced for Rob Baker's entry, but as regards the notability of the works in which he is a creator, then these sources are available, and are referenced on the talk show's site at http://www.thejohnkerwinshow.com/news.html and can also be found elsewhere via Google search.) And certainly many articles are also available about "The Vision Awards" and about the films in which Rob has received credits.

This establishes the propriety of this article on this site to the letter of Wikipedia's guidelines -- despite anyone's "feeling or impression" that the subject is not notable "enough" to their liking. If fulfilling the rules is the requirement you wish to fulfill aside from any other leeway it could be afforded -- it does.

Further, the article keeps being tagged as lacking "inline citations." The citations, as mentioned on the site, are needed mainly "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." So perhaps the article COULD include inline citations -- but there seems to be nothing outwardly and distinctly requiring of them. Rather than marring the article with a large notice up at the top, it certainly seems within reason to label it a "stub" instead if more information is desired, which notation is usually placed at the bottom. Otherwise, if any experienced editor here knows a good way to reference as an inline citation the above-noted items properly within the article -- it would be nice if you would. Thank you. JonnyQ123 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The guidelines for notability that apply to this article are WP:N and WP:BIO, specifically, WP:Creative. Assuming you are referring to WP:Creative, #3, you are implying that this person's work has been the subject of of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The TV show that this guy worked on has not been the subject of any independent book or feature length film. His collective body of work has not been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. We get who this guy is and he blatantly, and unanimously (except for WP:SPA, WP:COI editors) fails that criteria. Please stop now. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go look up the word "or" and note the italicized items. The rule indicates "the subject of a book OR feature length film OR of multiple independent periodical articles OR reviews." Any ONE of those things MEETS THE GUIDELINE. The notability of the work is another discussion entirely, but given that it is notable and has been the subject of numerous articles, then one of its main content creators falls right into this category. And it refers to the WORK being the subject of articles -- not the creator, who must only be verifiable as such, as shown above. And you are being notably condescending and snippy with your attitude here, which is also notably AGAINST the guidelines for this site, especially for an admin, and which I feel justified in addressing. Otherwise I am keeping this directly on point and there is no reason I shouldn't be able to present a case within the site's guidelines. If this article is deleted, it will be because the voters essentially don't "like" it here -- not because they are actually enforcing the guideline. JonnyQ123 (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability for Rob Baker there needs to be articles about Rob Baker, not about The John Kerwin Show or John Kerwin or any of his other works, about him. We've not seen anything to qualify for that. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't say that there. It says the WORK must be the subject of articles. If you co-wrote a bestselling book and the book was covered in articles, but no one did a profile on YOU specifically -- that would be an example here. Many TV show producers DON'T have articles written about them. The only requirement here is that the identity of the person as a creator be affirmed. JonnyQ123 (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add, theres probably enough (barely I suspect) WP:N for the show, and probably enough for John Kerwin (both have articles, but are badly in need of sourcing and work), but there just isn't enough for the producer of that show, as has been iterated on many many times here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A well-reasoned, well-researched argument was presented in the collapsed section above which proves the article falls within Wikipedia's guidelines. Hiding the argument seems to be an unfair use of administrator action which does not help guide objective reasoning here. So I will try to be succinct:

Verification has been established through several credible sources. Notability is established as per WP:Creative under creative professionals, item #3. Within that section, the sentence will read, when you remove the inapplicable "or" items: "The person has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That is the sentence which supports notability, or which must be disputed in order to establish lack of notability. See above collapsed section for expanded discussion about this.

Again, this states that the articles must be written about the work, not the person. Likely not many can readily name the producers of other late night talk show hosts like Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, etc., and you might not expect there to necessarily be articles written about them as popular media tends to favor writing about celebrities and shows rather than the creative people behind them. This may be why the notability guideline is written just the way it is, as otherwise most TV producers/writers/creatives would "fail" here due to the lack of having had some journalist write about them. JonnyQ123 (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing provided in this article remotely satisfies notability requirements, and the associated articles dont support notability either. normally, i will do a google search to see if an article can be saved. however, if the subject of the article, and a passionate supporter of the article, have not been able to add any more information than this, then how could i find anything? I sincerely hope something is added, as i dont like to delete articles on people who are close to notability (obviously, as a producer, he could at any time find himself in the limelight, and i sincerely hope he does, assuming he isnt a malevolent prick :){i know that sounds mean, but im sure hes been called worse in lalaland, and im sure he can take it, and im not even calling him that}), but the article is what it is, despite all the arguments in support of it. sources, people. and remember, a print source that can be verified is good too, though i suspect most recent reliable print sources are also found online. oh, and no prejudice against recreation if and when notability can be shown. see, im not a malevolent prick either:) Further research: since this sometimes happens, i checked the edit history of the article for previously entered material that may have been deleted that could show notability. all the prior references that are no longer here were, upon investigation, not helpful in establishing notability. For the record, i see a series of reasonable deletions of unusable external links, essentially noncontroversial edits under WP policy guidelines. I really hope that the subject can see this, and that this afd process doesnt appear to reflect any sort of bias towards or against the subject. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Rana

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

WP:N and WP:V concerns. No hits on Google News (a few false hits) except for http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005\12\29\story_29-12-2005_pg7_24, which refers to the name at the front of a list of cast members. All the web hits I could find were either in just lists of names or were mirrors of existing Wikipedia articles, but there's a fair bit and another pair of eyes would be welcomed. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already for lack of sources. Nominator has done the paperwork here to show that this person is indeed non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsie Padley

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

I prodded this article, and the editor removing the prod tag added this edit summary:

rm prod, her stage performance reviewed in thestage.co.uk

The extent of her coverage in said review, which is the only reference in the article, is as follows:

Youngsters making their mark include … Chelsie Padley and Hilary Shaw as Good and Bad Witch…

This is not significant coverage of Padley. Accordingly, I'm nominating her because her television and stage roles are minor and do not elevate her to specific notability as an entertainer, and because the lack of independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage mean she is not generally notable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think there's enough coverage if you go through old google news hits, etc., but the article could certainly do with better sourcing and expansion. Vartanza (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some coverage but nothing indepth to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Original close was "The result was delete. Since sources have not been provided the delete arguments have not been refuted Spartaz Humbug! 11:02 pm, Today (UTC 3)" but on a second look after a nudge on my talk page I think I got this wrong so I'm reclosing as no-consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bletsas

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

I can't see anything in the article that meets notability guidelines. (borderline importance asserted). I also can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Some gnews hits are foreign-language, so if significant coverage can be demonstrated there, I will be happy to withdraw. Beloved Freak 10:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When his name Michail Bletsas is search for on GS it gives some hits, but not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Appears to be basically a systems administrator at MIT; the highest degree held is M.Sc., not a PhD. A few publications with a few citations, but falls far short of passing WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I completely rewrote the article, based on reliable sources. I don't think he passes WP:PROF, and I don't think being a sysadmin at MIT is enough to be notable. But he has collected a fair amount of press for his work at One Laptop Per Child and for networking Patmos, and was keynote speaker at several conferences. So I think he squeaks by on WP:GNG grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Networking an island with a population of 2,984? Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's a founder of a large publicly listed company, and an important member of the One Laptop Per Child project. That's good enough for me. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This claim that he co-founded Velti is only supported by a COI press release. Abductive (reasoning) 20:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur, he may not be well known but the company is. It's enough for me. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator - well done to the work put in by David Eppstein, it's much better. I'm not completely convinced that the subject meets notability guidelines, but my stance is now neutral.--Beloved Freak 17:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article makes refereces to TWO Michail Bletsas's go to the Director of Computing at MIT's webpage and you'll see it makes NO MENTION of One Laptop per child, I retract my previous comment in favour of deletion. I only just realised this. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 04:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two different people both named Michail Bletsas, both of whom have worked closely with Nicholas Negroponte (founder of both OLPC and the Media lab at MIT where MB is director of computing)? That seems an unlikely coincidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The One Laptop per Child article reveals no mention of Michael Bletsas, and shows that the actual power behind it is Nicholas Negroponte. Many other people are mentioned in that article, but not Michael Bletsas. Abductive (reasoning) 19:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are you doing reading our Wikipedia article and trying to use it as a source? Read the sources listed on Bletsas' article instead. They mention him, prominently. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The CCNC blurb about him is not reliable; he likely wrote it. Velti.com does not mention him; [55]. Being a speaker at some conferences doesn't mean much to me. Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The CCNC blurb is used only to source factual material about Bletsas, so it's not relevant for a discussion of his notability. He appears to no longer be associated with Velti—when I edited the article, I removed an assertion that he was on its board of directors—so why should they still mention him? And you're entitled to your opinion, of course. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Check the MIT Michail Bletsas' web page and you'll see no mention of OLPC, in fact the Wikipedia article itself makes reference to both of them as though they were one person, check OLPC's webpage and you'll find it doesn't make a mention about Bletsas being the MIT Director of Computing and frankly the OLPC Bletsas is far more notable. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This reference I added to the article recently has both MIT and OLPC in one page. Softarch Jon (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Source you linked is not very notable or verifiable for that matter. http://web.media.mit.edu/~mbletsas/ Here read that. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 06:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The real deal is that many millions of people have had some success in their careers and received some mention in the press. But encyclopedia articles are supposed to tell the reader something above and beyond a CV and a scrapbook. Knowledge of Michael Bletsas is not necessary to an understanding of any other topic. Without context and a claim of notability these sorts of articles must be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per my above comments, neither of the Michail/Michael Bletsas have that much notability among the community, I've only heard one mention of them on the news, sure the OLPC founder has some standing among the community his notability is still next-to-nothing... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No "neither" here: this is one and the same person; see my remark above. Softarch Jon (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is discussed in a number of sources. Sufficient publicity to make him of interest to read about. The article has nearly dozen references. Softarch Jon (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Go to the official MIT edu website: http://web.media.mit.edu/~mbletsas/ no mention of OLPC whatsoever, if it were of importance it would be listed. I haven't found any information about MIT on OLPC either. So there are 2 of them and both are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fridae'sDoom (talk • contribs)
- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're very stubborn, but I don't see the point of it here when there's so much other evidence that they're one person. Also, this web page is a primary source and we should be using secondary sources when possible. Also also, according to archive.org, he hasn't updated his MIT web page since 2006. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Acknowledged, however, we still lack some reliable sources. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 03:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pobol y Cwm. Redirects are quite cheap, and this will help anyone who wants to preform a merge. Courcelles (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grug Maria

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

fails WP:ENT. at best 1 role. although the IMDB entry for this TV show [56] doesn't even list her. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after several searches, her notability is not verifiable, and this is a BLP. I found very little that is useful, and only one site in Welsh. She is a very minor actress. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Not notable. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Pobol y Cwm. With respects to User:Bearian, her work in this Welsh series is verifiable and what news coverage she does have is all for work in that series.[57] If a reader is looking for this unusual name, a redirect will take them to the one place where she has sourcable context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus 23

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND and has been marked as possibly not meeting the general notability for over a year. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. Thought not a BLP, I don't feel comfortable closing an AFD for a band article with poor sourcing as "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about this musical "group" which is a single person with sometimes some collaborators. Nor can I find any coverage about the main "member" of the group. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Whitaker

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

I'm not sure this is enough for WP:ENT. The only reliable sources I can find are essentially cast listings for Benji: Off the Leash!. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He hasn't done much else, but he DID have the lead role in a feature film and I think that qualifies him. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No significant coverage found. Lead roles suggest notability but there's little that we can verifiably say about him other than a list of roles, so if kept would need to be cut to the barest of stubs.--Michig (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep Lead role in Benji: Off the Leash!.[58] His other verifiable roles push at WP:ENT. Stub can grow with this actor's career. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hustler (album)

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

I can find no substantial coverage of this album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, the album and the rapper are small-time. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That's unnecessarily harsh wording. However, the absence of any sources (and any useful information) renders this article pointless. See WP:PROMO. 161.49.249.254 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherly Love (The Cleveland Show)

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Neelix (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of the Cleveland Show episodes. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't watch the show and I am wary of being beaten with the WP:OTHERSTUFF club but is there any reason why this episode specifically fails notability guidelines but the other episodes in the season do not? I'm neutral as to whether or not it should be deleted due to not being familiar with the programme but I'm just curious as to why this episode has been singled out. Keresaspa (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this deletion debate is much larger than this particular episode. We have individual episodes of The Simpsons and South Park here, and they seem here to stay despite the fact that on their own most episodes would be non-notable. However, I believe that including these individual episodes makes Wikipedia more useful and relevant than a paper encyclopedia. Same thing applies to The Cleveland Show. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here's one source.[59] I don't care enough to find a second, but they usually exist for these kind of cartoons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several reviews of the episode online. It is pretty hard to not be able to find an episode review for any current show. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can clean up the article so it doesn't look like a blog entry, keep. Otherwise, redirect to List of The Cleveland Show episodes. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of The Cleveland Show episodes until someone establishes WP:Notability. At the moment, this article violates WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF and WP:SPINOUT, but there is no content in the parent article-list, so it's worth preserving the content in some manner. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Television episodes do not fail notability. Should be improved, not deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ghosts 'n Goblins (series). I redirected since the merge target is unclear, its all the history so feel free to merge appropriately when you have agreed where to Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Arremer

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has refs, more refs are evident from the above searches, and since the fictional character spans multiple works, there's no apparent place for the content to be merged. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Articles should not be kept simply because there is no place to merge them. Google Books and Google News archive searches result in a small number of mentions in passing: not enough to constitute significant coverage as per the general notability guideline. This fictional character is simply not sufficiently notable to justify an article. Neelix (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I am not seeing any reliable or anything that's considered significant coverage in any of the search results I've looked at. –MuZemike 23:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: can't find sources to WP:verifynotability. Saw the one source but it's not much more than a trivial mention. Nothing to base an article on. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gargoyle's Quest#Characters. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Gargoyle's Quest II or Demon's Crest, which also feature the Red Arremer, not to mention the various Ghouls 'n Ghosts games? I don't think that's a very good location to redirect. –MuZemike 16:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the description there can be augmented to indicate the character elsewhere int he series. If there is a character list for the series, then it can be put there. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone have Nintendo Power #241? Gargoyle's Quest had a one-page article and I believe they discuss Firebrand, including his penchant for pseudonyms in games aiding his obscurity. —Ost (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also disagree with moving to Gargoyle's Quest#Characters; this character existed before that game and merging/redirecting to Ghosts 'n Goblins (series) would be more appropriate. —Ost (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gargoyle's Quest#Characters for apparent lack of notability. Redirecting would allow the content to be recovered later when an appropriate merge target can be found. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ghosts 'n Goblins (series) article covers both Ghosts n' Goblins as well as Gargoyle's Quest and Demon's Crest. Seems like a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Actually, there is a weak consensus to merge but no consensus for a target. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to not keep a separate article around, so admin-overturn to merge to List of Duck Dodgers characters, the most appropriate merge target. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.Q. Hi

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of Looney Tunes characters, to Duck Dodgers, or some other relevant article or list. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as per Jclemens. Can't WP:verifynotability but can expand Duck Dodgers. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha8

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

Non-notable(some refs but nothing significant);COI peterl (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signidficant coverage in reliable sources. Note that the sources provided in the article do not support notability. The first although not online, looks to be a list of merging companies. Absent other sourcing, such material is never sufficient on its own to establish notability. the others are a couple of directory entries and a press release rehash. My own search uncovers only more press release rehashes. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nathan Collett. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Oath (2005 film)

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

Appears to fail the WP:Notability (films) guidance. Apart from one reference to a show, I find no references in Google News. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge/Redirect to director Nathan Collett. While this film does not have readily available sources (and I am willing to be convinced otherwise if they are brought forward), it seems that the director himself does have coverage,[60] and his article can be improved and better sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested to article on film maker. Really no information in this article beyond a description of the film, because no secondary sources. Not saying it's not a good or important film. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm trying to find useful links, but its hits in Google are buried because of the new (2010) film of the same name. Nonetheless, verifiability can be found in IMDb and Amazon. I realize this is not compelling evidence of notability, but I feel that as the only film treatment of the Mau Mau to be made in Kenya by Kenyans, it is notable on its own merit. As a foreign film short from 5 years ago, it will be challenging to find weighty sources online, but I will keep trying. Please don't flame me for my vote! I saw the film myself upon its release, and I know there was considerable notice taken of it at the time (indeed, it plainly launched the career of Nathan Collett). I just would like to see the article tagged for expansion rather than deleted. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Re:Frame program website, part of the Tribeca Film Institute, has a page about "The Oath" which lists awards from "French Cultural Center, Nairobi, Kenya; National Museums of Kenya; Humanist Hall, Oakland, California; Pan African Film Festival, Los Angeles, California USA; FESPACO, Burkina Faso; Zanzibar Film Festival; the World Social Forum, Caracas, Venezuela." Is TFI's word good enough for this, or should they all be individually sourced? SteveStrummer (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reframe site is problematic as single source for information. Its stated goal is "The goal of Reframe is to help individual filmmakers, distributors, archives, libraries and other media owners to digitize and sell their work using the internet, and to become a one-stop location for anyone seeking these films." which in essence makes it an on-line shop and in fact runs as an Amazon partner site.

Putting aside the commercial issue, the page about the film itself does list these awards but includes no information about where this data was taken from. It is clear that the site takes user submissions as well as reviews written by readers. Consequently information on the site is unreliable and Reframe makes no statement with regard to the extent of editorial control. As the list of awards may have been written by an amateur or a publicity agent, there is no guarantee that the awards are notable or were actually nominations rather than awards won. There is no information about the year of the award, which would seem a key fact for inclusion in this article.

Putting this all together, I would say that third party sources are needed to support any information this site provides. Fæ (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect these comments but I feel it should be pointed out that Reframe, as part of TFI, is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization: its connection to Amazon is purely a distribution partnerrship and Reframe earns no profits on the sale of films. As for editorial control, it is clearly not a public forum, as Reframe itself delineates contributions that may be accepted from users: "We have invited noted directors, professors, critics, film societies and experts in the field to contribute to blogs and make curatorial recommendations. Users are encouraged to build profiles, create and share their own lists of favorite films, review available films and comment on blog posts." I have become a member just now and can verify that users may only add content in these 4 ways: they cannot add or edit movie pages. It seems to me that the objective information on the site should be taken with the same level of authority conferred upon TFI. (I should also make clear that I am not affiliated in any way whatsoever with Reframe, TFI, the film, or its makers.) SteveStrummer (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more useful to raise it as a potential source on WP:RSN as this will gather more opinions that are possible in an AfD discussion. It will be more creditable on the notice board if you can point out an editorial policy that the site applies. It could claim to be either a primary or tertiary source but, as the site fails to cite sources for data, it will remain of debatable quality.

I note that Tribeca Film Festival exists but not Tribeca Film Institute, it may be a good candidate for a new article. Fæ (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nathan Collett. Coverage about the film is scant. There are some brief mentions like this, and this, but no substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adina Spire

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

Miss Spire says she is notable and that we should keep this autobiography, but I beg to differ - independent coverage is quite lacking. What say you? Biruitorul ^Talk 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find no independent sources or evidence of notability. --Deskford (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a conflict of interest here. I believe that when an article is written by someone with a conflict of interest, it makes the resulting text irredeemably tainted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images see http://www.google.com/images?q=Adina Spire&hl=de&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi Adrianaspire (talk)
Additional News, not already cited: "Locals in the picture", The Evening Chronicle, Newcastle, 26.09.2008; "ARTIST REFLECTS ON TOWN'S POPULATION FOR ABBEY FESTIVAL", The Journal, Newcastle, 26.09.2008; "MATTERS OF FAITH: A personal look at the Holocaust", Courier News, 15.04.2009; Search also "Bezdin Ensemble", it is her orchestra. Adrianaspire (talk)
conflict of iterest, yes, i admit, i am Adina´s sister. Adrianaspire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Conflict of interest and no notability. Fails Wikipedia:COMPOSER#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel A. McGowan

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

I'm very much in doubt as to this person's notability; I think it's very telling that all references and external links in the article are to sites directly linked with him. Almost makes this page seem promotional in nature. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The definition of "professor emeritus" varies between universities and colleges, and in many instances, it's a reflection of retirement rather than of distinction (such as a "distinguished professor"). In this case, I don't see any significance to his being a chair for an organization wanting to build a memorial for the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre, although the work for a memorial should be mentioned in that article. Mandsford 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite to Deir Yassin Remembered. The organization has enough news hits to convince me that it's notable enough for an article. McGowan, however, seems to be notable only for this organization—I don't see any evidence that he passes WP:PROF—so I think WP:BIO1E applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable academic. If the organization is notable then create an article on that. Will Beback talk 09:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a few citations about him on Google scholar, many cites at Google books, quite a few WorldCat, and a one at Epic. These could be used as possible cites. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or rename. Something between this person and the organization he chairs is notable, possibly each separately. Deir Yassin Remembered has become a significant organization and with present trends will soon be more-so. This article must not be deleted without a Deir Yassin Remembered article being in place, and quite possibly not even then.Gombulandun (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StarFish (children's band)

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

Contested prod. Article is about a kid's band, but I cannot find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, only press release blurbs and social media sites. TN X Man 20:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StarFish was proposed for deletion because it is a "non-notable" band, but it was reviewed in the Star-Ledger, Timeout New York, and Cookie Magazine, among others. They have been featured in Putumayo albums and are described as an up and coming children's music band. Manx17 (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This band is one of the top East Coast family music bands. In the little world that is "kindie," they are definitely players. They are signed to WorldSound music label, and were featured on the new Putumayo Kids "Rock and Roll Playground" CD, which has international distribution and is featuring them on a concert tour and "Air Guitar" video contest, also promoted internationally. Here are some other recent articles in print and online: Allentown Morning Call (PA) AOL's "Parent Dish" reviews (online) Common Sense Media (online review)

STarFish is also getting radio play around the country. An example is KDHX Radio in St. Louis. Bethbcpr (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. I think it scrapes the GNG. The local press coverage in the Star-Ledger, Time Out and Allentown Morning Call is at least reliable. Fences&Windows 21:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Stigma

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

Sources provided do nothing to establish wide notability. magnius (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Etrigan (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and soft redirect to wiktionary. I don't know how to do soft redirects, can someone kind do the needful? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Techie

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

This unverified article about a slang term is not, in my opinion, appropriate for Wikipedia, considering that it is much more a definition entry than anything else; I would like to see if the community agrees with me. Given its complete lack of references, I think deletion is proper, or possibly the transference of content to another Wiki project. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is much more than a definition. I added a dozen references and could have added many more. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I would suggest that this may work best as a disambiguation page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDICT hits this article out of the ballpark. Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a soft redirect to Wiktionary. The list of different definitions for the term is a textbook case of a dictionary entry! But do add the extra definitions to wiktionary:techie. Fences&Windows 18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The techie personality is quite notable. Chris Crawford, for example or Techies as non-technological factors in software engineering?. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good references! If the name of the article was changed from Techie (sounds like a definition of a word) to Techies (a well-sourced article about the personality type/job description/worldview), would that satisfy people's objections above? --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pluralising doesn't change anything. Fences&Windows 23:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki to wiktionary, or Merge to Nerd (kidding) SnottyWong ^chatter 19:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious merge target is technician. Nerd is somewhat different as it implies a lack of social graces and physique too. Boffin is another possibility but that has suggestions of genius which is more than the ordinary techie. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution is the beginnings of the disambiguation page that I suggested. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over 23 thousand Google news results for the word. [61] Read the titles of the news articles, and you see quite obviously the word is used by notable news sources for a type of person as well as a culture. Its not just a definition, but an explanation of a significant cultural phenomenon. Dream Focus 22:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News hits for a word are irrelevant. If you can write a coherent article based on significant coverage of the concept of "techies", then great, but at the moment this is a dictionary entry with multiple definitions and no evidence of notability. Don't just !vote and point us at a search - if you want to rescue the article, roll your sleeves up and actually edit it, for a change. Fences&Windows 23:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I edit quite often, whenever I feel the article has a need, and I can think of something to add to it. Earlier today I even created a new article. And the Google news shows this is a valid term, the required Policy of verifiability being met. It is better as a Wikipedia article than a stripped down Wiktionary entry. Dream Focus 07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's a consensus that this subject belongs in Wikipedia. There's not a consensus as to where. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Llanidloes Fancy Dress

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

This local party, even if it attracts three times the number of the village's inhabitants, is not notable. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Llanidloes as it appears to be a significant cultural event for the town. The BBC reports that this street party is one of the largest in Wales, and local press has much more coverage like this. -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on sources found (or merge) (~~or perhaps~~ keep depending upon whats in the sources) there is more coverage by third party sources than many other articles that survive AfD. I am gonna go add some now. Active Banana (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three completely seperate*keep, a mention in The Rough Guides and coverage in local news outlets clearly meets "significant coverage in reliable sources" Active Banana (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Per Bananna - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMiner (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick James (marketer)

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

Non-notable personage and vanity page, created by the subject, to promote himself and his website. I couldn't verify the references as being independent of Mr. James. Mr. James removed the proposed deletion after 'addressing my concerns'.-- Syrthiss (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is clearly promotional in tone, and the fact that it was written by Nick James Com (talk · contribs) cannot be discounted. This is why we have WP:COI. Even assuming that the subject may possibly be notable, I can find no proper sources that demonstrate that notability. Of the five sources listed, the first is a blog and unsuitable, the second is nonspecific, the third is the subject's website, the fourth cites to a newspaper website (sort of), but doesn't offer a link or a date and is thus unsuitable, and the fifth is nonspecific. So we're inching toward Advertising territory, and I would not object to a G11 Speedy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of notability and COI. — Timneu22 · talk 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage (as evidenced by the fact that the subject had to create it himself). Christopher Connor (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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