Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 18

< 17 November	19 November >

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 redirect to Star In the Hood. (non-admin closure) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something About Your Smile

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

not very notable. Page has no context at all, single referance, subject doesn't need it's own article Alan - talk 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- As per WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article will unlikely ever grow beyond a stub. Therefore, a redirect is more appropriate, despite issues regarding notability. Singularity42 (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect per above. All I can find are a few brief mentions of the song, the "best" probably being [1][2][3]. I don't really feel these can be considered "non-trivial" such that they meet the "significant coverage" standard required to pass WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 05:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as appropriateness of a separate article not demonstrated, in particular due to the low chart position achieved. Adambro (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as there isn't the coverage needde to establish this single song as notable -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)

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

not very notable. Page has no context at all, single referance, subject doesn't need it's own article Alan - talk 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- As per WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article will unlikely ever grow beyond a stub. Therefore, a redirect is more appropriate, despite issues regarding notability. Singularity42 (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing to "significant coverage" I can find is Tinchy answering a question about the song during this online interview. Absent any sources better than this, I don't feel this article can pass WP:NSONG. The name of the article is an unlikely search term, so I vote to Delete unless a more significant WP:RS is presented. Gongshow ^Talk 07:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge single charting details into album page, info wouldnt also be present in discography. will never have enough info to warrant a full article. Mister sparky (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need to keep as a redirect as an unlikely search term. Adambro (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of voice doubles

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

WP:LISTCRUFT that will never be complete. KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would be better served as a category, possibly with a stub about what a voice double is. Singularity42 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. has been moved to a proper location this is going to be notable so this is now moot. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Island, garden feature

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

This article is a thinly disguised reference to one particular UK Member of Parliament's claim for expenses on the upkeep of a duck house, not about "duck islands". Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can find no sources that discuss the topic of a duck island, only mentions of the topic in the context outlined by the nominator. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyper-delete I have never seen such Marxist propaganda in all my life until I read the article!--86.29.141.30 (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)— 86.29.141.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Have you ever seen Marxist propaganda in your life? Cause this sure don't look like it--it doesn't even quack like it. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This whole scandal was revealed by that well-known Marxist newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the nom says, this is a thinly-disguised reference to Peter Viggers' expenses claim. I would say redirect to Peter Viggers#The Duck Island Incident, but the second part of the title makes it an unlikely search term. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and expand - a genuine topic - note the Duck House photo. The article needs to be retitled as 'Duck shelter' or suchlike and expanded. 92.9.153.114 (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)— 92.9.153.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm renameinig it "Duck and Swan shelters".--86.29.131.120 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until the end of this deletion discussion before renaming. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Example of Wikipedia being used to make a political statement. Any useful material can be added to articles like water feature, or a proper version (under a better title) can be created after this abomination has been deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see that this has been taken from the article on Duck Ponds. Rosser Gruffydd 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs)
Delete - it's not realy note worthy.--86.29.133.116 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)— 86.29.133.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I have removed the stuff that was obviously meant to annoy Sir Peter's voters.--Novembiana (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC) — Novembiana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - please note that a deletion discussion is not a vote, and piling lots of "delete" entries in here will not ensure that the article is removed. Wikipedia:AFD#How to discuss an AfD is a useful read if you're new to deletion discussions. Thank you. MuffledThud (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and retitle to Garden island or Floating garden island or similar. Plenty of coverage of this type of garden feature online: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] etc., though the word "duck island" has recently been in use in the UK press to refer to a politician who allegedly bought one of these improperly. MuffledThud (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this AfD to generate more discussion about MuffledThud's "keep" opinion. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but rename) - on the basis that, disregarding entirely the MP's expenses issue, there is no reason not to have an article on Duck house / Duck shelter - much like Hen house ( = Chicken coop) - or some such thing, of which duck islands (ie, duckhouses on water rather than on land) could properly form part. Further, given the recent prominence of duck island(s) in a UK political context, that connection should surely also be mentioned - there's no lack of solid references. HeartofaDog (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've moved the debate to the 2009 November 18 log after this was closed for over a day. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not Britishpoliticsipedia. If we need an article about actual duck islands, write one; this is a bad starting point.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do need such an article, and I do not see why this is a bad starting point--we could remove all that part. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note that I moved the article to Duck house) I recognise the potential coatrack issues here, but I think this is a real and legitimate topic for an article. We just need to make sure the political content doesn't get too out of hand. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of its recent political connections, this seems a legitimate subject for an article. It even has decent pictures and (admittedly poorly formatted) references. Modest Genius ^talk 02:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect This article has been moved to duck house, which term does seem to cover a number of structures sheltering ducks. Duck island, on the other hand, seems to refer almost without exception to various islands per se, except for this one scandal. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete including any redirects. What a nuts topic. There are no convincing sources. It's not discussed in any notable way. Cynof Gavuf 12:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Inventions and discoveries

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

This list is arbitrary, unsustainable and indefensible. It includes inventions by cultures (Latin alphabet) that preceded Italy, inventions by Italian expatriates working for other countries (nuclear reactor by Fermi), concepts that can't really be called inventions at all (art academy), inventions that are widely claimed by others (light bulb), etc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there any reasons for keeping this tendentious page? Bigshot4ever (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)— Bigshot4ever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~Comment At first glance, it would appear that WikiDan is correct. Indeed, I started typing a 'delete' !vote - but then I looked into it a bit more. Let's look at the first few entries:

A-B on the list: which are correct?

N "Acqueduct The Romans": the Aquaduct article says Although particularly associated with the Romans, aqueducts were devised much earlier in the Near East and Indian subcontinent, where peoples such as the Egyptians and Harappans built sophisticated irrigation systems. Roman-style aqueducts were used as early as the 7th century BC, when the Assyrians built an 80 km long limestone aqueduct, 10 m high and 300 m wide, to carry water across a valley to their capital city, Nineveh.
Y "Aerial Warfare Italian Army-War with Turkey 1911": Aerial warfare mentions kites and balloons being used before this! If the author means using aeroplanes, though, they are correct (see Aerial_warfare#Before_World_War_I), so I'll AGF
Y "Aerial Bombing Italian Army-War with Turkey 1911": Ditto
Y "Aerial Reconaissance Italian Army-War with Turkey 1911": Ditto
Y "Aerial Transport Italian Army-War with Turkey 1911": Ditto
?"Airpower Strategy Giulio Douhet 1911": Debateable! The US were thinking of it about the same time (Aerial_warfare#Before_World_War_I)
Y "Afterburner (aircraft) Secondo Campini 1941": Secondo Campini shows the year as 1940 - although the British Power Jets W.2 was developed around the same time
Y "Alendronate Istituto Gentili 1980s": Alendronic acid doesn't give attribution, and "was licensed to Merck & Co., Inc. by Istituto Gentili SPa of Pisa, Italy in 1988 and is approved in 28 other countries."
Y "Alphabet (Latin) The Romans": History_of_the_Latin_alphabet says It is generally held that the Latins adopted the western variant of the Greek alphabet in the 7th century BC from Cumae, a Greek colony in southern Italy, making the early Latin alphabet one among several Old Italic alphabets emerging at the time. - assume AGF
Y "Alphabet (Runic) Italic Peoples": Runic_alphabet says The origins of the runic alphabet are uncertain. Many characters of the Elder Futhark bear a close resemblance to characters from the Latin alphabet. Other candidates are the 5th to 1st century BC Northern Italic alphabets: Lepontic, Rhaetic and Venetic, all of which are closely related to each other and descend from the Old Italic alphabet.
? "Ambulance Arcicoonfraternita Della Misericordia (florence) 1244": I can't find a specific reference online to "Arcicoonfraternita Della Misericordia" and ambulances (whether or not in 1244). History_of_the_ambulance would seem to suggest that it was either before this (Anglo-Saxons) or after this (Spain in 1487).
Y "Anemometer Leon Battista Alberti 1450": Anemometer confirms this (with a citation), whereas Leon Battista Alberti neglects to mention it - I might rememdy that later!
N "Anesthesia Ugo Da Lucca 1200": Anesthesia#History suggests that the Sumarians used opium as recorded in 1500BC. Gaseous anesthesias started being used from 1769. (No article on Ugo Da Lucca)
N "Art Academy Florence 1563": Neither a discovery nor an invention. Royal Academy of Art (The Hague) says that it is the oldest Art Academy in Europe (1682), whereas Accademia dell'Arte del Disegno (Florence) says it was founded in 1561. Either way, this isn't a discovery or invention.
Y "Artificial Insemination Lazzaro Spallanzani (done at Pavia) 1784": The history of artiﬁcial insemination confirms this
Y "Artificial Pneumothorax Carlo Forlanini 1882": Artificial pneumothorax in the treatment of lung tuberculosis states that while "In 1822 James Carson originated the concept and principles... Fornalini in 1984 independently revived the concept of APT using the closed method of needle induction, as later accepted."
Y "Attack Frogmen (Seals) Italian Navy 1918": as per Frogman#History
? "Ballet Baltazarini Di Belgioioso 1489": History_of_ballet#Origins confirms ballet originated in Italy, and Music_of_Italy#Ballet mentions Di Belgioioso. Whether it counts as an invention or discovery is debateable
N "Banks Bank of San Giorgio,Genoa 1149": History of banking talks about forms of banks in the 3rd millenium BC
Y "Barometer Evangelista Torricelli 1643": Barometer#History shows that Torricelli made the first working barometer intentionally, as opposed to Gasparo Berti, an Italian mathematician and astronomer, who unintentionally built a water barometer sometime between 1640 and 1643. French scientist and philosopher Rene Descartes described the design of an experiment on atmospheric pressure determination as early as 1631, but there is no evidence that he built a working barometer at that time.
N "Bassoon Afranio of Pavia 1500": Bassoon says Music historians generally consider the dulcian to be the forerunner of the modern bassoon, as the two instruments share many characteristics: a double reed fitted to a metal crook, obliquely drilled tone holes, and a conical bore that doubles back on itself. The origins of the dulcian are obscure, but by the mid 16th century it was available in as many as eight different sizes, from soprano to great bass. Also "Ferrara - Voci di una Città - Afranio, a Virtuoso Phagotus Player" says The phagotus was invented by Afranio degli Albonesi da Pavia... Rather than a precursor of today's bassoon, the phagotus was a refined version of the bagpipes
Y "Binishells (airform buildings) Dante Bini 1970s": Binishell confirms this
N "B.L.A.S.T. Algorhytm Gerard J. Foschini 1996": Gerard Joseph Foschini was born in New Jersey, and was working at Bell Labs in New Jersey when he developed [Bell Laboratories Layered Space-Time|BLAST]]
N "Books The Romans": According to History of the book the Romans used wax-covered wooden tablets - however this would mean that the Clay tablets used in Mesopotamia in the third millenium BC would count as books! Books in the form we know today were in Greece before the Romans started producing books.
Y "Broma Process Domenico Ghirardelli 1865": Broma process and [Domingo Ghirardelli]] confirm this.

~~So I feel that this article needs work (wikilinks, removal of some of the entries, conversion to a proper table) - but it works as a list - although I would probably rename it to "List of..."~~ -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate Phantomsteve's point, but this will never work, even as a List article. What is an "Italian" invention or discovery? Something invented by an Italian it Italy? An Italian outside of Italy? A non-Italian in Italy? An Italian-American (whose descended from Italian immigrants) outside of Italy? Roman inventions? Inventions by Roman citizens outside of what we would now call Italy? Inventions made by the Ancient Greek colonies in what is now modern Italy? Hence the problem... Singularity42 (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How I would define an "Italian" invention or discovery is: one which is done by an Italian/Roman in the area that we now call Italy. I'll be honest, my initial thought was "delete", and after some more thought, I am going to change my !vote to "delete", as it is too problematic to clearly define the criteria for inclusion on the list. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For many discoveries in the list, the priority can well be debated, thus an obvious POV issue. (technical note: poor formatting). Materialscientist (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unknown Spectacular Spiderman remake

The result was deleted by PMDrive1061 as hoax by known vandal/sockpuppeteer

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

I think the title says it all here. An article about an unconfirmed remake of a TV series. Fails WP:N and WP:V, among others. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there had been anything verifiable here, I would have suggested that it be merged into The_Spectacular_Spider-Man_(TV_series)#Future, but as it stands, this is unfounded speculation, with shades of WP:CRYSTAL -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article was created by a blatant sockpuppet account of User:Mark Marino, whom I blocked the other day for (amongst other things) creating hoax articles. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Barnard Hale

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

speedy tag was removed by an anon. There's a claim of notability ("Investors of the Year") , though not a source for it. I can find nothing significant in G or Gnews for either him or his company. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything for him. I also looked under Lucasfilm (as it says that he worked for them) but I can't find his name linked with them. It claims that he was CEO of Louis Vuitton's eLuxury - yet I can find no mention of this either. I would have thought that someone who "assisted directly in establishing an internet presence for eLuxury" would get a mention, and a CEO at that. I also looked up Sidley Austin Brown & Wood - no mention of him in connection with them. I'm not going to go on - I think it's a hoax, to be honest. "DBH INVESTMENTS" exists - there are 5 hits on Google News Archive - but none of them mention him. The company doesn't seem to have their own website. As for "RWH" - I've no idea who that is - I can't find a suitable organisation that it could be. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Probable hoax. (BTW, RWH probably = [10].) Location (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Still no verification found that that RWH awarded anything to anyone! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Able to locate educational background and affiliations with organizations mentioned. However, cannot find RWH award. Not sure it's a hoax, due to ability to find sketch outline of records, but unable to verify notability.

Delete - Fails verifiability. Note the weaselly wording in the article. He was not CEO of eLuxury, he "was recruited to work for the CEO of Louis Vuitton's eLuxury" which could mean almost anything including being the guy who coded some HTML for a web site. His other engagements are all equally vague. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News World Communications

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

This is a holding company for Unification Church owned news media, including the famous Washington Times and other lesser known outlets. Unlike its owner, and some of its subsidiaries, News World Communications has not been the subject of in depth secondary coverage and so is not WP:Notable.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even just the template above, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, shows a great deal of coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage in secondary sources to be notable. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is any coverage "in depth" rather than just repeating the information that it is the owner of the Washington Times etc. and is in turn owned by the Unification Church. If you can show me an article that gives us more information than this I will withdraw the nomination. I have no objection to an article if it gives some useful info. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are several. But aside from that, this is sort of akin to trying to get articles The Washington Post Company or The New York Times Company deleted, simply because their main focus of secondary source coverage about them, also happens to deal with their subsidiaries. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are much bigger companies. I don't think most businesses would have three articles. One on the company, one on the owners, one on its products. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly enough coverage to satisfy the GNG; coverage for notable holding company will almost always substantially overlap for its components. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt and Hulablaoo Wolfowitz. Notability may not be inherited downwards, but the parent company of the Washington Times and UPI should inherit notability upwards. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Jclemens, I'm not at all sure that notability should be inherited in any direction (down, upwards or sideways), but that's not germane in this case. Whether or not notability is transferable there's more than sufficient coverage for a short article here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably good enough sources. But even if not then by WP:Ignore all rules. The topic of Unification Church news media is certainly notable. It seems a little more logical to group them under this title than under something like "Unification Church owned newspapers and magazines." (Note that some do not have articles and/or are in other languages than English.) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory look shows enough places where a reader will find this name. Notable in usage. Notable by ownership. Meets notability for WP. Collect (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~BRUTAL 'delete'~~ [merge (to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations, with trimming) would be acceptable] and rebuttal to above opinions:
- Cirt: search results never ever demonstrate the existence of "significant coverage", they only demonstrate the existence of bare mention. To demonstrate significant coverage, you need to point to specific hits that contain such coverage.
- NeilN: no "coverage in secondary sources" has been documented (beyond the CJR listing below). Your opinion is therefore a bare assertion.
- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: almost no third-party coverage whatsoever (at this time) is not "Clearly enough coverage to satisfy the GNG"
- Jclemens: WP:NOTINHERITED applies in all directions. It is quite common for a notable company to have an obscure owner, particularly where that owner is not publicly traded (and so is under no obligation to make public announcements, nor has any need to talk their stock up, and thus no need for the limelight).
- S Marshall: please specify what this "sufficient coverage" consists of.
- Steve Dufour: if you want an article on 'Unification Church and the media' then find significant coverage in secondary sources and create one.
- Collect: "usage"≠WP:GNG (requires "significant coverage"), "ownership"=WP:INHERITED, so no valid argument.

The above opinions do not raise a single source. In fact only a single, currently-operative, third-party source in the article even mentions NWC (and it's simply a CJR "who owns what" listing). If somebody can be bothered to actually find significant third party coverage (instead simply assuming that it exists), this opinion may change. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would further point out that Google get 5 times as many hits for 'Washington Times' and Moon/'Unification Church'/Moonies as it does for 'Washington Times' and 'News World Communications'. This would appear that the former is the more widely noted relationship (anecdotally, my reading of RSs tends to support this) & NWC simply the non-notable 'vehicle' for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it owns a major newspaper like the Washington Times it is notable, just as long as it meets V. The GNG accepts that it does not always apply, & all guidelines have exceptions--we don;t even need IAR. I see this as an overly expansive reading of NOT INHERITED. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: the the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust is notable then? It own the New York Times (which has a far higher profile than 'Washington's "Other Paper"'). And as it turns out, very little in the article "meets V". I would suggest that yours is a dead-on-the-nose WP:INHERITED argument. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trust you mention owns the "voting shares" but does not own most of the NYT total shares. NWC has well over 100K hits as such on google, and, more to the point, is repeatedly referred to in news articles in major publications and political sites. Och-Sulzberger Trust gets a grand total of 40k hits on google, and (which is more important) is rarely referred to in news articles. It is therefore likely that NWC has a substantially higher notability than the trust has. Lastly, the trust exists only as an entity to control the NYT -- while NWC engages in substantial outside activity other than its ownership of the WT. Apples and oranges, I fear. Collect (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Referred to" is bare mention, not "significant coverage". WP:GOOGLEHITS aren't a good indication of notability (and in any case 100k is of a similar order of magnitude to 40k). "NWC engages in" insubstantial outside activity -- as indicated by the woeful sourcing of the non-WT parts of the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for deletion, then, has nought to do with notability. Absent a sound reason for deletion, defualkt is Keep. Collect (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Collect, Hrafn's argument has everything to do with notability. He's arguing the very letter of the general notability guideline. He wants significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, exactly as the guideline says. The Washington Times coverage would be more than sufficient for any other article, but Hrafn seeks to exclude it on the basis that it isn't independent of the subject because News World Communications Inc. is the Washington Times' owner.
I'm afraid, Hrafn, that this is one of those places where the letter of policy needs to give way to WP:COMMON and the consensus clearly demonstrated in the above discussion. Our editorial judgment is that the Washington Times, as a source, is strong enough to overcome the natural concern editors feel about sources that aren't completely independent.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also think that News World's own website is a perfectly fine source for information on the publications it owns. Just like Ford's site could be used as a source for what models of cars and trucks they make, although not for the quality of them, without having to find an article on each one in a car magazine. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the problem with this article. All there is to say is who owns News World Corp and what does News World Corp own.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that a single, fairly short article (Chris Baker's 17 April 2004 piece -- I could find no other "Washington Times coverage") from NWC's own subsidiary, which has a less than stellar reputation for editorial independence, and which is devoted mostly to regurgitating the NWC's spokeswoman's announcements, is hardly the basis for establishing notability, or for an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and when I said "the non-WT parts of the article", I meant the parts of of the article that weren't discussing the WT, not the exclusion of "Washington Times coverage" of the NWC. The section of the article on the WT is the only section that is sourced. Unfortunately, even in that section, neither (non-broken-cited) source (Moon himself & the Chicago Daily Observer), actually mention NWC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra info to consider News World publishes newspapers around the world in Korean, Japanese, Spanish, and Arabic. It is not likely that WP will have articles on these soon, but each one has a greater circulation than the Washington Times. If not for this article English WP would not have any mention of them. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In considering the above, you should note that none of the sections on NWC's non-WT activities actually have sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why most of them don't have articles. I think one sentence telling what newspapers and magazines NWC owns would be enough for the article. No need for a section on each one. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that in turn means that they don't add anything to NWC's notability, and so there's nothing relevant in your "Extra info to consider". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in any policy which says non-notable publications can not be mentioned in an article on a notable owner. Collect (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article currently has only two currently-functional citations that even mention NWC:
1. It's own subsidiary UPI, which only says this about NWC: "[Hyun Jin] Moon is also chairman of News World Communications, Inc., which owns United Press International. … The idea is one he has inherited from his father, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who is the founder of the Unification Church and News World Communications, Inc."[11]
2. This short "who owns what" list

I would further note that nobody has pointed to any specific source not currently in the article, as providing "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge I would not object if this article were (trimmed down and) merged to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. (I still prefer Keep.) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jclemens, Cirt, and Hullabaloo.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Importance of the subject is clear, even if not strict WP notability. The information is useful even if the article is not really first class by WP standards. A simple list of publications would do without a section of one sentence on each one. Notable ones would have their own articles of course.Borock (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisle Teens with Character

(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}}.

An article about a small, suburban Illinois youth group. No evidence of regional or national notability. Does not meet WP:ORG requirements. Warrah (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It sounds like a great group, and it certainly gets coverage within its local area in Chicago. The question is whether it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. If there was a larger "Teens With Character" organization, that would probably pass, although my search of the web suggest that it's something that was started at Lisle and has gone on to inspire one other group at St. Thomas Aquinas church. I'm willing to change my mind if notability can be argued. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mandsford--though I'd like to see notability proven rather than argued. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is not hurting the integrity of Wikipedia. I truly think that Lisle Teens With Character is a notible organization. No material is fabricated, they have members in many different high schools and middle schools. They do work all over the chicagoland area. Lisle Teens with Character is more than a "small, surburban youth group." Lisle Teens with Character is gain more notibility everyday. I thought that was what Wikipedia is all about. you can read things on wikipedia that you can't get in any other online encyclopedia. What makes it so unique is pages like this one. Jhaseltine (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LTWC has been covered by the media and were recently on NBC5 News. They have also received state recognition for their efforts in being awarded the Governor's Hometown Award in 2006. There is also a larger, national organization called Character Counts! which LTWC is based off of that encourages teens in the right direction and promotes character. LTWC may not be "nationally notable", but it is changing the world the only way the world can be changed: One small act at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.252.107 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article on local student organization. The Chicago Tribune mention is just in its "local" section, and just a routine mention of an event. "gains notability every day" = not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Webster defines "notable" as remarkable or outstanding. It is truly remarkable and outstanding the impact LTWC has on the community. I guess I just don't see all of the potential harm that this page can do. If someone can say a valid reason why this page is bad for wikipedia just speak out because I haven't heard one. Jhaseltine (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is your second keep vote. Once is enough. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think it sounds like a great organization. It's just that Wikipedia has its own definition of notable (in WP:N) and it's based upon a variety of factors. Some people, places and things are "inherently notable", meaning that they fall into a class of items that are placed in an encyclopedia without having to demonstrate coverage in independent (including non-local) sources. Thus, the articles Lisle, Illinois and Lisle High School are presumed notable without having to justify their existence. Everything else is subject to arguments over what people think Wikipedia's policy is. As for "potential harm" for bending a rule, we also look at the precedent that would be set. If LTWC should have its own article, then should every other service club (and there are, literally, millions of them) in the world have the same right? For example, consider the Shriners Clubs in the Chicago area-- the Shriners Hospital for Children in Chicago provides free orthopaedic care for children, in large part because of the continuing work of the various members of the local groups. And yet the Medinah Shriners (in Addison) wouldn't qualify for their own article by Wikipedia standards. That said, my suggestion would be that you should consider mentioning LTWC within the body of an existing article, such as the one about Lisle or about its high school. The Lisle Teens with Character will continue to do good work, irrespective of whether they have their own article on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lisle Teens with Character (LTWC)This group has in fact received local, state and federal accolades. 2003 Awarded Certificate and US Flag from Congress Woman Judy Biggert & the Illinois House of Representatives “For their determination to improve the world around them through positive leadership and a profound demonstration of Patriotism.” 2004 Recipient of the State of Illinois Governor’s Hometown Award for the Village of Lisle. One of five groups that received awards in the entire state for youth involvement. Only project run by teens. 2005 Illinois State Treasurer Judy Barr-Topinka, State of Illinois Certificate of Appreciation, Lisle Teens w/ Character 9/11 Memorial Rally “I commend you on your profound character of patriotism, character of community spirit and character of community service.” 2006 Filmed for Citizenship DVD, PBS national distribution, for the National CHARACTER COUNTS! Organization,2006 Illinois Secretary of State Jessie White- Certificate of appreciation for over 2,000 of community service. 2006 State of Illinois Governor’s Home Town Award, named as one of the top eight projects and as a Governor’s Cup Semi-Finalist. 2007 Daily Herald’s Person of the Year-January 2007 for community leadership. In 2008 S. Thomas the Apostle Parish formed their own group St. Thomas Teens with Character after LTWC. I believe that notability directly correlates to dependability and longevity. LTWC has demonstrated both. Additionally by Wikipedia's own definition of notability "significant coverage" well, there has been significant coverage. Remember this is a grass roots, teen driven teen led, teen mentored group. Trying to re-shape the thinking of adults to include teens as viable contributors to society, community and service. LTWC has received "significant coverage". Laura , IL.
- The above comment was placed here by User:Ldavivdson, who has made only one edit on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This proves that Lisle Teens with Character has recieved local and national notability, and therefore meets the wikipedia organization requirements. I agree with Mandsford that we can't have every small youth group without notability to join wikipedia, but Lisle Teens with Character doesn't fall into this category it's not just a "small, surburban youth group" it has "evidence of regional and national notability," and it fits the requirements of a wikipedia-worthy organization. Jhaseltine (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is your third keep vote. Once is enough. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE; this group is a joke and promotes stuck up individuals and promotes better yourself and not working in a group or helping thos earound you. Help those aorund you to better you and your goals only! I was a membe rfor 2 years. David, IL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.6.70 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David, your delete vote has nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines, and as such is wasted. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I'm sorry that you had a bad experience in the group (if you even were in the group), but not only is this completly false, has no source of verification, and is slightly off topic of the notability of LTWC, but promoting character and performing community service is NOT at all being "stuck up." Jhaseltine (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is your fourth keep vote. Once is enough. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Lisle Teens with Character (LTWC)This group has in fact received local, state and federal accolades. 2003 Awarded Certificate and US Flag from Congress Woman Judy Biggert & the Illinois House of Representatives “For their determination to improve the world around them through positive leadership and a profound demonstration of Patriotism.” 2004 Recipient of the State of Illinois Governor’s Hometown Award for the Village of Lisle. One of five groups that received awards in the entire state for youth involvement. Only project run by teens. 2005 Illinois State Treasurer Judy Barr-Topinka, State of Illinois Certificate of Appreciation, Lisle Teens w/ Character 9/11 Memorial Rally “I commend you on your profound character of patriotism, character of community spirit and character of community service.” 2006 Filmed for Citizenship DVD, PBS national distribution, for the National CHARACTER COUNTS! Organization,2006 Illinois Secretary of State Jessie White- Certificate of appreciation for over 2,000 of community service. 2006 State of Illinois Governor’s Home Town Award, named as one of the top eight projects and as a Governor’s Cup Semi-Finalist. 2007 Daily Herald’s Person KEEPof the Year-January 2007 for community leadership. In 2008 S. Thomas the Apostle Parish formed their own group St. Thomas Teens with Character after LTWC. I believe that notability directly correlates to dependability and longevity. LTWC has demonstrated both. Additionally by Wikipedia's own definition of notability "significant coverage" well, there has been significant coverage. Remember this is a grass roots, teen driven teen led, teen mentored group. Trying to re-shape the thinking of adults to include teens as viable contributors to society, community and service. LTWC has received "significant coverage".
- The above comment was added here by User:Douglas Bradley, in the same edit as the one below. It is obvious, Douglas, that the comment above is a carbon copy of the comment higher up the page, which was supposedly by User:Ldavidvson. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Lisle Teens with Character. The members of this group come from several schools and towns around the area, not just from Lisle. They have a great time together and do important work. They are respected and appreciated! The teenagers that I have seen involved with this group, LTWC, truly want to help people. We need more teenagers to get involved rather than take the easy road and say that it is “someone else’s problem”. We need more role models in this country, like these kids, not couch potatoes. This group’s impact is positive and far-reaching. This group helps the homeless, the veteran’s back in the U.S. as well as the soldiers that are, overseas fighting for the United States right now. They have helped feed starving people in other countries and worked at food pantries in the area, They have helped many others that needed help. This group has received accolades from the local media as well as the State of Illinois. I personally have spoken to people in Ohio and Minnesota about this group and they want to know how to get similar groups started in their states. LTWC was Awarded Certificate and US Flag from an Illinois Congressperson & the Illinois House of Representatives “For their determination to improve the world around them through positive leadership and a profound demonstration of Patriotism.” So they have received significant coverage, as Wikpedia requires. With or without Wikpedia I am positive that LTWC will continue to do well and help raise great United States citizens. These teenagers will grow up to be adult citizens that are not afraid to help others nor are they afraid to show their love of the freedom that they have in this country. If you do not keep this group on Wikpedia it might not be as exposed to the people that are looking to do good in this world. This group is notable because it has TEENAGERS that want to do the right thing and help others in the community. Anyone that does not want this group to have the Wikpedia exposure is most likely the type of person that wants to reduce others rather than promote others. These people should get involved in volunteering and maybe they would have a different perspective. Douglas Bradley, Illinois —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Bradley (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who looks closely at the history can see that the above comment was refactored here by Jhaseltine. It is noteworthy that Douglas Bradley made only one edit on Wikipedia. I smell a sock. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Lisle Teens with Character is a part of something bigger than just service. Its reflective of the changing attitudes of our youth and a renewed interest in the betterment of society, and the media HAS taken notice. When you search "Lisle Teens with Character" in the Daily Herald database, at least 20 articles feature the LTWC or one of its members, a fact that certainly highlights the notability of the LTWC. But media coverage isn't the only way that one should measure its notability. What is truly remarkable about the LTWC is its impact on the community. More and more teenagers throughout DuPage County are finding something positive to do with their time through the LTWC. These teens have contributed thousands of hours of service to their communities. The Character Counts Program has taught kids the fundamentals of character, but the LTWC applies these things to life. I was a teen leader in the LTWC for four years, and I know that I am a changed person because of it. LTWC instilled in me a drive to do something more, to go beyond the status quo and to live my life for others rather than myself. I gained outstanding leadership abilities and found a true confidence with who I am. I may only be one person, but I truly believe that I am representative of many members of LTWC who are being molded into outstanding young men and women. Posting the LTWC on wikipedia as a notable organization would allow others to see the kind of thing that teenagers are doing; these kids aren't just sitting around playing video games, they are doing something with their lives. They are working for others because they care. Matt, IL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.208.22 (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ any service group can say they have performed a lot of community service but it take a group completely unique like LTWC to have the notability that we have. Jhaseltine (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - This is your fifth keep vote. Once is enough. Neither JHaseltine nor any of the other keep voters have produced any reliable sources for the group's notability, and I would like to point out to them that they are welcome to do so: adding testimony about what the group does is not going to help the group's notability. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me that there is overwhelming sock activity happening here. I don't know if there is a procedure for such a thing, and I trust the closing admin to make the proper call. However, if there can be a speedy closure based on the fact that all the keep voters might well be the same person, and they essentially rehash the same argument, and none of them have produced anything like a reliable source, well, I would be in favor of such a closure. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Sorry about the multiple "keep"s, i thought you had to put that up every time. and about the "sock activity," I got in contact with some people who know the most about LTWC about this discussion page. Here are the sources for the governor's hometown awards:

-2004 (look at "Character Counts" in catigory V, the "area's youth" is LTWC) http://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Community_Development/Governors Home Town Awards (GHTA)/GHTA_2004winners.htm -2006 (it's on page 11) http://www.commerce.state.il.us/NR/rdonlyres/637A7394-9DA3-4BAF-A223-D9170906E515/0/20061018StatewideGOV2006HomeTownAwards.pdf Jhaseltine (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is very local and more of an event announcement nature. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: recieving coverage on NBC news, recognition by our congress people, being featured in a national video on WTTW, and recognized as one of the best community service groups in the state (and the only one of these acclaimed groups to be run by teens) is not what I would call "local" at all. Don't shoot LTWC down without conducting sound research to proove that you're 100% correct. also, we are "local" group, but we are recieving national, state, and local coverage and recognition. this in addition to the fact that many other places are trying to recreate the success that LTWC is having in Lisle make LTWC very notable and worthy to have its own page on Wikipedia. --Jhaseltine (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User Drmies commented on the fact that I only have one previous post on Wikpedia. That is a true statement. I do not often feel compelled to voice my opinion in a public forum such as this. There are enough people that want to comment on everything that is put out whether they have the background or not. In this case, I feel it is important enough for me to take the time to register and to post my comment that this organization is what is right in the country. As far as being a “sock”, I am not exactly sure what that means but I assume that it implies that it is a ruse. My postings are Douglas Bradley’s postings and not that of anyone else. It should be obvious that when a topic brings people to take action, in a venue that they normally do not participate, that they have a passion for the topic. As I said before Lisle Teens with Character is a great organization that has received notability from several facets within the state of Illinois. They will survive because these TEENAGERS are doing what many adults will not. They are taking action and not just sitting on the sideline complaining or demeaning others. Douglas Bradley, Illinois —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Bradley (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last note I created this article just as a base article to expand upon. If this article passes this stage, then I will make it my mission to improve the article. I will include all of the sources for LTWC's notability, and add more detail. I wasn't aware that it would be nominated for deletion. sorry for the confusion, but I will start working on improvements ASAP. thanks, --Jhaseltine (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Essence of Data Management in Business Intelligence

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

Seems like original research to me. I can't envisage any possible encyclopedia article carrying this name, so I don't think it's worth saving anything here. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Looks like someone just copypasted one of their college papers onto Wikipedia. DarkAudit (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOR. MuffledThud (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an utterly unreadable essay: I have come to the conclusion that the main back bone of BI is data management. Data management ensures data integrity and availability through methodologies such as data warehousing, cleansing, profiling, stewardship, modeling and definition. Effective business decisions rely on data accuracy and reliability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an essay. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swindon 105.5

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

Article has no third party sources that ascertain the notability of this station. Even if there are reliable sources for this station, this is still of border line notability. User talk:Ron Travolta who works at the station has requested deletion of this article as it has received a lot of WP:BLP vandalism. In the case of WP:Borderline biographies deletion is often carried out at the request of the subject. I believe that this should be extended to borderline articles of this nature, which are mainly about people, so suggest Delete Martin451 (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The general rule for US-based stations is if it's an FCC-licensed station, it's considered notable, no matter the size. How does that guideline apply to the rest of the world? I'd be inclined to say this station would meet the guideline. DarkAudit (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If it is a licensed broadcast radio station then I think that makes it eligible for an article. That said, this article has a lot of unreferenced cruft and should be pruned without mercy down to what is supported by reliable references. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up - According to the article, it's a "fully licensed by media and communications regulator Ofcom", which I would assume grants it notability. But, as I said, if it does stay, it needs to be cleaned up, and there's probably some that could go. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have had a bit of a clean-up and added a couple of references. Could probably do with someone a little more brutal than myself to make it all Wiki qualit,. I just don't like deleting other people's work... Jnthn0898 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments so far have been in favour of keeping the page, albeit with some editing... can someone tell me how to protect the page from constant vandalism if it has to remain? Ron Travolta (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The normal way: Keep it on your watchlist. Undo inappropriate edits. Warn repeat offenders. Report any regular troublemakers (or anybody who makes a single egregious edit, such as libel). Request semi-protection if IP vandalism gets out of hand. Don't worry. We can keep it under control. Now that the article has had all of us looking at it and watchlisting it, it isn't going to be easy for vandals to make their edits stick. Once vandals realise this they tend to lose interest and slope off. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Filsaime

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

Article reads as an advertisement for a non-notable 'internet marketer'. Major contributions from one single purpose account, Lawther. This makes this article look very spammy/self serving. Unam3d (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the majority of the references have the subject's name in the URL, I smell a rat. When an article says 'Mr Soandso' or 'Herbert' (when his surname is Soandso) I also smell a rat. To me, this is spam. I'm open to be proven wrong - I'm always open to being proven wrong (which is probably why I'll never be a pope...). Peridon (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--there IS a rat, and this IS spammy, but at the same time, there is some wheat in this chaff. He had a couple of media appearances, he is on that list of 100 marketers... I'm giving Mike the benefit of the doubt. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the top 5 of a list, maybe. In the top 100? Hmmmmm..... Peridon (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wow someone really must want this article deleted considering there is a Prod, CSD and AFD all at one time lol. In addition to my good friend Drmies reasons, Mike has some book coverage per [12], [13], [14], [15]. So keep but perhaps a re-write needed. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Marcus! Good seeing you again. Glad you found that coverage--thanks. I went ahead and removed the prod, and the second for that prod; one deletion process at a time is enough. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If not delete it, it definitely needs re-writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.89.251 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure, withdrawn by nominator with no !votes ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. H. Runge

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

Biography is dependant on 1 news coverage. I don't feel this person meets WP:ANYBIO and may be known for 1 event. One source hardly proves notability and the article does not describe any sort of award or significant contribution to society/field. I can't even find the person's first name on google. TParis00ap (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I am withdrawing this nomination for deletion. The article has been improved and I am not sure I can support this AfD anymore. I'll monitor the article to see if it continues to improve. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow smile

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

Not a very notable topic, currently completely unsourced, and lacks context to assert notability. Edit history includes many cultural references (mostly pop-culture) in which this particular attack was used. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found three reference from a reasonable sources (The Daily Express, The Independent, and The Sun (newspaper)): [16],[17],[18]. I think the current state of the article (with all of the pop culture rubbish removed) is acceptable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Why so serious? --Explodicle (T/C) 19:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided above demonstrate that this is a real injury, and this phrase is commonly used (at least in the UK) to describe it. If there are too many pop-culture examples, that's a problem for cleanup, not deletion. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would have thought "chelsea smile" the more common term though. Artw (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets news coverage. Dream Focus 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ohnoitsjamie. The amount of coverage in reliable sources gives this topic notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball: Its reliably sourced! Notability established. Suede67 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. can be undeletd on presentation of solid sourcing.. until then its not for mainspace. I can userfy if anyone wants to work on it in userspace Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome BBS

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

Delete. Honestly, I'm not sure how this was retained the first time around, it is pure original research and cites nothing in the way of reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, WP:OR --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an example of an article that's hard to source without going back into pre-internet publications. The number of google hits suggests that the BBS software may be notable, but it's hard to tell, and google often comes up empty when it comes to BBS-era software even when it is highly notable. I think the best solution here would be to tag it as unreferenced and bring it back to AfD if references aren't added after some time has passed. Amazinglarry (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to concur with Amazing Larry, here. There are no glaring problems with the article (such as BLP) that demand a quick deletion, so there is no harm in taking some extra time to research the subject. I'll see if I can come up with anything. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable: it is an old, interesting and large system. Amazinglarry is right about the difficulty of finding good sources on this, but it would be fantastically short-sighted to simply delete it because of this difficulty: it would simply be throwing away information for no good reason at all. This article addresses part of social computing history, and must be kept. DBaK (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:INTERESTING. We don't keep unsourced content around just because someone might find it interesting. We have to be able to properly verify the material we present here, as a service to our readers. JBsupreme (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree, either with your summary of what I said or with what you are trying to do. The problem of finding sources in this case - especially with a ridiculously unsearchable name like Monochrome and the rather transient nature of some of the history of it - is very real, and does not make it a de facto invalid article. I still do not see what is wrong with Amazinglarry's suggestion and I, in turn trust that the closing administrator will carefully consider all of this - I too will be "dumbfounded" if they do not properly take into account the particular problems here. DBaK (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BBS pending better sourcing. All that's been shown to exist so far is the .net article, which is a start, but not quite to the multiple sources we'd need. This article actually has been around for years without the sourcing issue being addressed, although apparently there wasn't a tag pointing out the problem. Tagging and waiting would also be an option, but I'd prefer just redirecting. When and if someone finds sources, they can recreate... the content would still be there in the article history for anyone to use, we wouldn't be throwing it out. In this case, I think it's worth pointing out that the Monochrome still has an informative website online... Wikipedia is not the only or even the best source of information on this topic at the moment. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no explanation for why consensus has changed since it was kept in AfD four years ago. It appears notable, its a topic where finding the sources isn't as easy as a quick google.--Milowent (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One would hope that our standards for sourcing and reliable content have improved over the past 4 years. I'll be dumbfounded if the closing administrator overlooks this glaring problem in lieu of all the WP:ILIKEIT votes. As it stands, this article violates WP:V policy. JBsupreme (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I believe the .net article gets us past WP:V issues, since WP:V just calls for deletion if there are "no reliable, third-party sources for... an article topic". There's one here. But the notability guidelines call for multiple sources to support a standalone article. I agree that appeals to google hits or empty, non-source-based assertions of notability should be discounted by whoever closes this discussion. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a citation which meets WP:N and WP:V concerns.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Changing from keep, my citation was originally from Wikipedia. I overlooked that. Since I searched extensively for references, I must vote delete per WP:N.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good grief yes, the whole Webster thing is just a massive WP rehash! Bummer, I am thinking of changing my vote to "head>desk" or "I give up" ... :) DBaK (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - having read all the above and looked around a bit I do worry that it may prove impossible ever to find verifiable sources on this. Whilst I'd support "tag as unreferenced but don't delete just yet" in the hope of shaking something out from the trees, I don't think I could support "leave it alone and unreferenced for ever." And even allowing for the difficulty of searching on common words, it does seem - see TParis00ap above! - remarkably hard to find anything. Pardon my thinking out loud - my inclination is still really keep but I'm really having some trouble seeing the way forward. If we did what Amazinglarry suggested, would it be time-limited, or would someone commit to bring it back to AfD after x months, or what?? How would this work? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Typically when there's a problem with a lack of sources in an article, it should not go directly to AfD as this article did. It doesn't belong at AfD yet. The best course of action is to tag it unsourced, wait a month or two to see if the regular editors who contribute to the article find anything, and if it remains unsourced, then take it to AfD. I feel that this is a premature AfD nomination, especially given the fact that google searching is never going to bring up the sources that this article needs. The people who wrote this article will be the most likely to know where to find the sources, so put a notice on the talk page and maybe they'll come through. Amazinglarry (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "directly to AfD"? This article has existed since 2004. I think 5 years is enough to wait for a source before an AfD.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean it should have been tagged unsourced and discussed on the talk page before going to AfD. It doesn't matter how long the article has existed, the fact of the matter is that a key step was skipped. Amazinglarry (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair point - if it has waited years without a tag, then surely a couple of months with one can't be a big deal? DBaK (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well we have a week now. Does anyone have any realistic leads? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Erm, in many ways, ah, no. As one of my old lecturers used to say, this is where my claim falls to the ground. I might a drop a line to someone at City on the grounds that their IS department should know if anything serious was written about it ... DBaK (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        A good place to look would be Boardwatch magazine, the main BBS-related publication for many years. Unfortunately the contents are not searchable on the internet, maybe someone has access to a library database that includes Boardwatch? Anyone? Amazinglarry (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless coverage in reliable sources can be found. I recognise that it's hard to do so, but we can't accept original research: if no mention of this system exists in reliable sources, then neither should this article. Robofish (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by DGG (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion; and WP:CSD#A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Sanders

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

Appears to be a vanity piece. Does not meet the basic criteria for inclusion as outlined at WP:People Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. He's a lawyer. He's a Republican. So what? No assertion of notability whatsoever. DarkAudit (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annick Press

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

None of the sources establish notability. There is one source behind a pay wall that might go into detail, but so far no one has coughed up the cash. Please see prior discussion at Talk:Annick Press. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Extensive press coverage, publishes award-winning books and nationally best-selling author/s. That's exactly what makes a publisher notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers do not inherit notability from their authors/books. Which source would you say describes Annick Press directly in detail? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that it's logical that publishers don't inherit notability from their authors. If that is the case, then the only appropriate sources of notability for publishing companies would be articles describing, say, their business model or their fulfillment process; it's like saying that a professional sports team doesn't gain notability for the fame of its players or their record-setting efforts, but merely the excellence of its management. In fact it might be said that authors would not have notability unless a publisher agreed to publish them, since self-publishing attracts no notability, so the notability must in some sense flow from the publisher to the authors. I agree that people don't gain notability from their relatives, but I am having a hard time figuring out how a company doesn't gain notability from its products. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's much more to this company than just a business model; it's got a history, a standard for what's suitable for children, its own bookbinding style, it's influence on the community, etc. Book publishing companies should be held to the same standards as any other organization. Taking the sports comparison, I would say a team becomes notable because of their achievements as a group, not because of the achievements of individual players. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this publisher is notable for the reasons I've given on the article's talk page; I'll be adding more citations as I find them. I should note that much of the corroborating material has been added recently and was not present at the time of the good-faith nomination. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while a publisher cannot necessarily or automatically be considered notable for, say, publishing 1 notable book, or by even by having 1 notable author (thought that probably always cinches it if they are the exclusive publisher), they will certainly gain nearly all their notability from what they publish. is MGM notable for their movies? would parlophone be notable if not for the beatles?. wait, thats notability by inheritance as well? this publisher has a reasonably solid reputation, based on its books, which is the primary standard for a publishers notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key difference here is that we have secondary sources about MGM and Parlophone. If those companies had no press coverage on their own, we'd just briefly mention them in the infobox for a movie, or our article about the Beatles. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This particular publisher seems to have established a strong list of award winning authors. WP:NOTINHERITED is a guideline that outlines for us that just because X is associated with Y, and Y is notable, then X by mere association is not notable. In the case of a publisher, it's notability is linked to the publications that it puts out, and the publisher isn't merely associated to the books and authors, having a stronger relationship and hand in the production of the book. It's difficult to tell how deep the coverage is as the articles are behind pay walls, but [19], [20] appear to indicate that they are notable enough to attract some press attention,and especially in the second abstract, it's clear that the success of Robert Munsch is being told framed with how it was achieved through this publisher. --- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russel Disco

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

Character from non-notable unpublished story. The Stone the manga series article is also up for deletion. Ferrantino (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete both. This is as close to nonsense as makes no odds. Why do we have to go to AfD for such obvious drivel? DarkAudit (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mega Delete. Notablity not established, no sources. No speedy criteria, so we have to wait 7 days. I doubt [WP:IAR]] will be invoked, but it's worth a shot. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete -- not notable, nothing worth salvaging here. It's pretty obvious, and could have been PROD'd. Singularity42 (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where's a WP:SNOWBALL when you need one? Could some admin please just read the article and put it out of our misery? Mangoe (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go'way

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Go'way

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

A WP:DICTDEF of a possibly WP:MADEUP WP:NEOLOGISM. Contested prod. Tim Song (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I declined an A7 speedy deletion request as incorrect and added the prod tag. The nom pretty much says it - it is a totally unreferenced dictionary-type definition of a non-notable idiomatic expression. I'll add that the original version contained potentially defamatory material which I have deleted. LadyofShalott 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article should definitely Go away. Every dialect has its fun ways of pronouncing things (in my part of the world, it's "Ahmoan" for "I am going", as in "Ahmoan down to the store"). But that doesn't mean that there should be an entire article called Ahmoan. This one is kind of dumb anyway-- so "Go 'way" is slang for "go away"? How imaginative. Maybe someone can translate the word goin' for me, I can't figure that one out. Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable slang word. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I nominated it it says the word was coined by a redlinked name. Perhaps it's not WP:NEO or WP:NFT, but certainly still totally non-notable. Tim Song (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was meant as an insult to some associate of the author. See the original version of the article. LadyofShalott 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get outta here. Pure crap. No notability established. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a reasonably well-known regional idiomatic slang, but not really notable, and probably can not be expanded to much more per WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copying the author's comment on the article's talk page here in the interest of fairness:

“

I would like to change the title pf this page to go w'eey, as this is the preferred spelling, This can be found on the urban dictionary, an acceptable source for use of slang words. It is a commonly used phrase in certain parts of England. Unlikely to be in dictionarys as it is slang and an abbreiviation, but this does not make it invalid!

”

Tim Song (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Delete - would need to know the actual proportion of users, but would make the argument that this is not urban dictionary. Perhaps if we can find citations etc. that this is in popular usage then it may be notable enough, with a significant rewrite to the page.

[[21]] it is here on the urban dictionary implying surely it is well known, or in use. I have heard it all over in the north, and maybe other abbriviations etc. should have their own page or at least be mentioned on the page based on the full word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermann Von Salza (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else has pointed out, you originally said that the word was coined by an acquaintance of yours, whom you compared to a "fool". It's better that this article, including its earlier drafts, be erased. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have no article for go away, so we definitely shouldn't have this article. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete how is this now speedy deletion it is zero content patent nonsense urban dictonary non notable slang. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead there should be a page for go away along with abbreviations and slang. This would resolve the matter giving it some credibility.

Actually, I think you're on to something there. We have an article for parting phrase (which encompasses things such as "so long", "farewell", "auf wiedersehen", "good bye", etc.). I don't know what linguists call an expression like "Go away", "get lost", "f*** off", etc. The proper term isn't "dismissive phrase", since that also is used to describe condescension, sarcasm, and indifference. I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on this, since we don't have an article for whatever one calls a command to depart. Mandsford (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal is the term that comes to mind, but nothing listed in that disambiguation page fits. LadyofShalott 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The context I associate with this remark is disbelief rather than dismissal. I equate it with statements like 'Yeah, right...'. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whoever it was said coined it, no, he didn't. It has been in use for some time - but that doesn't mean that such an easy to understand expression needs an article. The spelling used is merely a reflection of north east England pronunciation. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this version of Hermann Von Salza's user page, I'd like to hear a good reason the article shouldn't be speedily deleted right now as vandalism (G3) and the user indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. LadyofShalott 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Striking that... LadyofShalott 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of one good reason, and that's his statements on his own user page were obviously intended as humor. The essence of the joke is that he wrote one thing, and then crossed through parts of it, yet still leaving them visible. It's kind of like writing "Wikipedia is ~~eggsjordinary~~ ~~extronary~~ ~~extrordinerry~~ good." in order to pretend that I couldn't spell "extraordinary" and gave up. Bear in mind that a real vandal never announces, in advance, an intent to be a vandal. In fact, by doing so, Mr. Von Salza has actually invited someone to keep an eye on him. For the benefit of anyone who might not already be aware of this, Wikipedia is designed so that anyone's contributions can be monitored, simply by typing anyone's user name into the box that says "Search for contributions"; and any edit to an article can be traced to its source simply by clicking on the article history. Nobody-- Mr. Von Salza, me, you-- can get away with anything. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, how long before the final decision on the article is made. It ought to be kept and improved, or at least merged with another article to do with partings. This is not vandalism and as dictionarys aren't designed for slangs it ought to be here, not the wiktionary.--Hermann Von Salza 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

These discussions typically last seven days beginning with the original nomination. LadyofShalott 04:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday then, ought to stay on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermann Von Salza (talk • contribs)

Can I just make a point that I did not put the lines through Lady Of ~~Onions~~ shallotts comment about my article. I know this may appear as my style of comedy or an attempt at a humourous form of censorship, bit it wasn't me.--Hermann Von Salza 10:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I struck those comments, and noted that I did so (see addition right at the end where I said "striking that"). You are under no suspicion. LadyofShalott 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stone the manga series

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

non notable essay describing non notable unpublished story. WuhWuzDat 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found at all for "Stone the Manga". No Books/Scholar/News results for "Irod Telesford" (the supposed author) - and all the Google Search results seem to be social networking sites. No indication that this exists, and is planned to be published in the future. Besides, WP:CRYSTAL -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BK, WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL...and almost every other guideline here. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT at best and WP:HOAX at worst. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Turn 4: The Freaks

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

Movie not yet announced, no verifiable information available, not listed in IMDB. Fails per WP:CRYSTAL Jarkeld (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete. Complete lack of verification. This is an article that should be hit with the WP:HAMMER. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalballing a film that may never exist. Hopefully will never exist. DarkAudit (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Talking stages? We might as well slap "neologism" onto this for good lulz. -WarthogDemon 20:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a definite WP:CRYSTAL, but they did make two direct-to-video films in this series. Sadly a fourth film in this series is likely to be made, but right now we don't need an article on it. Nate • (chatter) 06:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Puetz

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

Lack of notability. The two references are to obituaries for relatives, the article which mostly discusses a business fails to give reasons. Only one link here, from Evergreen Washelli Memorial Park where he has been interred. JohnBlackburne (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Also I believe the business fails WP:CORP. Ivanvector (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local guy who owned an local driving range. And that's it, apparently. DarkAudit (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd Al Razzaq Abdallah Ibrahim Al Tamini

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

Non-notable individual except for one event. Limited if any third-party sourcing to otherwise meet notability guidelines. Grsz¹¹ 15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have done a bit of fixing (a 'bad' article needs fixing, not deleting) and there seem to be quite a few more Third-Party sources than what I've already added. As one of the Guantanamo detainees whose stories reached the media, he seems to fit the threshold of notability. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The events are related, but all the events of a person's life are related. Without reference to this particular article, I note this BBC story. As I predicted in earlier discussions, every one of them will be the subject of major coverage in their native countries. We'll just be adding these back. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- For a wide variety of reasons, including that the nominator is overlooking that the Saudi government placed Al Tamini on the Saudi list of most wanted terrorist suspects back in February -- clearly a "second event". Geo Swan (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all the above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pen Rollings

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

Non-notable person per WP:BIO. Grenouille vert (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. Tagged A7. No assertion of notability. Playing in a band is not an assertion. Should have been speedied years ago. DarkAudit (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Declined. Yes it is. GedUK 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply How do you figure that? What makes being in a band, any band, any more notable than being "a lawyer", or "a doctor"? Since the majority of the bands listed are redlinks, how are we to know if those bands made it any further than just some guys who showed up at a local club's amateur night once a month? There's no mention of any awards, tours, or albums. Just that he was in a smattering of bands of unknown prominence. That is not a satisfactory assertion of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - There is one bluelinked band, so it has some assertation of notability. However there are no sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Delete TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not (quite) an A7, as there _is_ an assertion of notability. However, fails WP:MUSIC. It might be worth having a look at Breadwinner (band), too. Tevildo (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any RS for this artist; appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahbub Rahman

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

Non-notable except for one event. Limited if any third-party sourcing available to otherwise establish notability. Grsz¹¹ 15:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator appears to have selected 5-6 random Guantanamo detainees to try and delete, copy/pasting his nomination for each of them. Third-Party sources seem to exist for all of them, and no attempt is being made to improve or expand the articles, instead just jumping straight to deletion. AfD is not the proper route to ensure an article is fixed up - though it sometimes has that effect. This article needs work, yes - but it is about a notable individual andadequately sourced with reliable footnotes. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, all five of the articles in this nominator's initiative were known or suspected to have been minors when captured. Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - except for those detainees that have received significant coverage an individual article seems like overkill. I couldn't find any significant coverage of Mahbub Rahman, his name is occassionaly mentioned in news reports, but only in passing and not with enough detail to write an article about this individual. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- According to the allegations Mahbub Rahman faced he was personally assigned to participate in an attack on the Salerno Fire Base by Abu Laith Al Libi while the allegations M.R. faced describe Al Libi as an "al Qaida facilitator" he is usually described the number three in Al Qaeda. The allegations he faced said Jalaluddin Haqqani personally recruited at the madrassa he attended. Jalaluddin Haqqani was the Taliban's senior military commander remaining in Afghanistan following the Taliban's ouster. I suggest being accused of personally being recruited by two, count'em two of ISAF's most senior enemies merits coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Further to "one event" -- several years ago I read an argument someone else made that we should delete the article on former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair because it lapsed from BLP1e. He argued the only event Blair was known for was his support of George W. Bush war policy -- no one would ever have heard of him if he hadn't supported Bush's policies. The surprising thing about this wise-guy's argument is that he could have cited dozens of editorials that complained that Blair was simply "Bush's lap-dog" for his uncritical and dogged support of Bush. I think this wise-guy's joke made a very important point as to how subjective these judgements as to what is "one event" can be. Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There might possibly be a case for deleting articles against gitmo prisoners of whom nothing substantial is known. But for this person, there is information available and in the article. He is notable for what he did in the fighting, what he is accused of, and for his being in some people's eye's a victim. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Sheru, DGG, and Geo.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsullah

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

Non-notable individual except for one event. Limited if any third-party (non-U.S. government) mention. Grsz¹¹ 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator appears to have selected 5-6 random Guantanamo detainees to try and delete, copy/pasting his nomination for each of them. Third-Party sources seem to exist for all of them, and no attempt is being made to improve or expand the articles, instead just jumping straight to deletion. AfD is not the proper route to ensure an article is fixed up - though it sometimes has that effect. This article needs work, yes - but it is about a notable individual andadequately sourced with reliable footnotes. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for the others. sources are adequate. Most of the gitmo prisoners are notable in at least two phases of their life: their role in their fighting, and their role as a prisoner. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asadullah Abdul Rahman

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

Non-notable individual save one event. Only non-trivial coverage is a single article from Fox News. Grsz¹¹ 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator appears to have selected 5-6 random Guantanamo detainees to try and delete, copy/pasting his nomination for each of them. Third-Party sources seem to exist for all of them, and no attempt is being made to improve or expand the articles, instead just jumping straight to deletion. AfD is not the proper route to ensure an article is fixed up - though it sometimes has that effect. This article needs work, yes - but it is about a notable individual andadequately sourced with reliable footnotes. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is a misunderstanding of the one event criteria. Guantanamo detainees are notable. Being one that was 12 to 15 years old makes this even more notable. It is easy to find other sources. Kingturtle (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a victim and as someone accused of being a terrorist or at least an enemy. Sources are adequate. I hope this group of nominations is not based on POV. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Weak consensus here that notability is establishable and reasonable arguments on both sides over whether it is a just a one event or not. Given that four other similar articles have all been kept and the opinions here, am closing as keep. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naqibullah

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

Non-notable individual only recognized for one event. Only non-trivial coverage a single article from BBC. Grsz¹¹ 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News archive shows more references than the one BBC story used in the article. See also SF Chronicle [22].Newspapers throughout the world apparently thought he was more notable than the average POW because he was a child prisoner, age about 13. Rather than "one thing" there are several things: he was arrested allegedly as an "unlawful combatant," interrogated every day at Bagram, then placed in a prison claimed to hold only the "worst of the worst" who had no rights under US law or the Geneva Conventions, subject to execution or life imprisonment, because Rumsfeld said the prisoners there were '"hard-core, well-trained terrorists" and "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth."' Then they were released, after what they describe as good treatment. Edison (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator appears to have selected 5-6 random Guantanamo detainees to try and delete, copy/pasting his nomination for each of them. Third-Party sources seem to exist for all of them, and no attempt is being made to improve or expand the articles, instead just jumping straight to deletion. AfD is not the proper route to ensure an article is fixed up - though it sometimes has that effect. This article needs work, yes - but it is about a notable individual andadequately sourced with reliable footnotes. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, all five of the articles in this nominator's initiative were known or suspected to have been minors when captured. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- At the time he was released, Naqibullah, was one of only a handful of captives whose identity was known. He was one of only a handful of captives to be interviewed, following his release. Multiple reporters sought him out. WRT to nominator's assertion that Naquibullah was known for just "one event". No offense to our nominator, but I am afraid this argument exposes a weakness in how we deal with "one event" articles, not a weakness in this article, or the others they nominated. The policy gives no guidance as to what should be considered an "event". It is a highly subjective judgment. And the policy is, or was, clear that some individuals, who were known for just a single event, would nevertheless merit an article, if the event was significant enough. Naquibullah was apparently captured just because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was treated as an adult while in US custody in Afghanistan -- which human rights workers claim was a violation of international agreements the USA is a signatory to. He was subjected to the same brutal and illegal treatment while in US custody in Afghanistan as the adult captives. And when he was transferred to Guantanamo he and two other minors were given extraordinary treatment not given to the other minors sent there. The international agreements the USA is a signatory to obliged the USA to give lessons to all captives who were minors, but only Naquibullah and his two companions recieved lessons. Although the Geneva Conventions obliged the USA to inform the youths families that they were prisoners, their parents were only informed a few weeks before their return. Claims that all these events were just "one event" are essentially arbitrary. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Further to "one event" -- several years ago I read an argument someone else made that we should delete the article on former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair because it lapsed from BLP1e. He argued the only event Blair was known for was his support of George W. Bush war policy -- no one would ever have heard of him if he hadn't supported Bush's policies. The surprising thing about this wise-guy's argument is that he could have cited dozens of editorials that complained that Blair was simply "Bush's lap-dog" for his uncritical and dogged support of Bush. I think this wise-guy's joke made a very important point as to how subjective these judgements as to what is "one event" can be. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the nomination as an example of one event. The subject of this article did not play any "large role" in the context of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp as evidenced by a lack of significant coverage. Yes, 2 reporters spoke with him after his release and return to Afghanistan (one from the Guardian and one from the BBC), but this is no indicator of notability as there is no wider coverage. The other articles from the Google News archive cited above are either direct quotes from those two reporters or trivial mentions. Perhaps the information contained in this article may be merged with relevant information about Guantanamo detainees in either a new or existing article, but this article does not fulfill our notability requirements. BWH76 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient V information to show notability in several events: in what he was accused of, in his role as a victim--which is what is the focus of most of the references, as his youth makes him one of the most egregious examples. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On reflection, changing my vote from keep. Just not notable enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be enough verifiable information available to assert notability, as DGG said. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that there are not enough/any reliable sources to establish notability NW (Talk) 19:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Live in Japan

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was previously nominated for deletion, but was closed as "no consensus". The DVD is a non-notable bootleg that fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The article may be listed on electronic commerce websites, but that does not make it notable within Wikipedia. There is not one single non-ecommerce reliable source that discusses this DVD. Pyrrhus16 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per comments on the first deletion discussion. All listed sources fail WP:RS and no qualifying sources have been located by any of the many editors that have searched. From what I can tell, the article is not about a particular DVD but about a collection of bootleg DVDs compiled at different times by different people, none of which meet WP:NALBUMS. A bootleg of a notable concert is not itself automatically notable, and this particular (series of) bootleg(s) has received no coverage whatsoever from reliable sources. If it is so popular among fans, there should be news coverage, but there isn't. I'm not saying it isn't popular, in fact I'm quite certain that it is from the amount of interest this has generated, but it can't be verified by reliable sources. This deserves at best a trivial mention in the Bad World Tour article. Ivanvector (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per comments on the first deletion discussion. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed in the last couple of months, aside from the album getting more notable- This bootleg is notable in that it's probably in the top 5 most famous bootlegs of all time. It's certainly the most eagerly anticipated album by one of the world's most notable artists. As this has already been discussed, and the deletion denied, in order to delete, you will need to add something new, or an argument that says the situation has changed. Note also that it's a concert, and not a collection. It's on 2 CDs because of the running time, that's all. It's a concert taken from a TV broadcast, and then duplicated by many different bootleg companies and individuals, as is common with any successful bootleg. Sources? What do you want, something from epicrecords.com?! There are thousands of threads on hundreds of Michael Jackson message boards. Some get deleted by board moderators because they want to conceal anything that isn't an official Sony release. This is not the case here on wikipedia, which covers things objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.43 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's as notable and successful as you say, then surely reliable sources exist stating this? Please provide them. Otherwise, the article exists purely off of unreliable ecommerce sites and editors' own original research, making it unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pyrrhus16 21:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"What I want" is a reliable source to verify that this is notable. To establish notability there needs to be significant in-depth coverage from an independent, published, third-party source. For example, a non-trivial independent review in a major magazine, coverage in a notable newspaper, or inclusion in a book published by a reliable third party. Fansites, message boards and online merchants simply do not fit the criteria. So far nobody here has denied that this is popular among fans, but you cannot just say it is so (that is original research) - you must be able to prove it. You must locate a reliable source that demonstrates notability. Since none have been found, this article fails WP:N and WP:V and is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you can fix it by adding a reliable source, I will happily withdraw my objection and forward you a plate of cookies, as I'm sure will the other editors insisting this article be removed. Ivanvector (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of what this is labeled (bootleg, unofficial release, etc.), and even though it involves an obviously notable person, the article must still satisfy WP:GNG. Mere proof of the product's existence is not what I consider "significant coverage", and I can not find evidence from WP:RS sufficient to meet this standard. Gongshow ^Talk 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to see some better references. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ^ it's because it's not a film. It's a notable concert recording (both audio and video). I do not see what is different to last time, other than somebody with bee in bonnet. Sources all over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.66.54 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — 85.16.66.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of the sources are reliable. If it's notable, prove it; add reliable sources stating this. Pyrrhus16 11:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this article is not verifiable by reliable third-party sources at all. Yes, there are numerous sources provided with the article, but each and every one of them points to a page related to the material (fails WP:RS) or a site that sells it (fails WP:RS) or some other source that is not reliable. Per the notability guidelines, a bootleg concert recording does not inherit the notability of the concert; the bootleg must independently satisfy WP:GNG and this clearly does not. Ivanvector (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Berakhah. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birkhot Hanehanin

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

As per prior AFD by JFW on similar topic, "Essentially a subarticle of Berakhah, dealing specifically with blessings in Judaism that may be Biblical rather than rabbinic in origin. The article is completely lacking context, relevance and understandable English. No scope for merge, so delete suggested." This reads more like a sermon or lecture than an encyclopedia entry.This whole article should either be deleted, or redone in 1-5 sentences and put in the Berakhah article. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant content into Berakhah. This is an essay / lecture and does not belong here but in a book on the discussion of Halakha. Shlomke (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Berakhah, also needs some tidying and tightening up. IZAK (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Berakhah per nom. No reason to fork this. --Shuki (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fishel Jacobs

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

Article has no independent sources to establish notability - all the links are to subject's sites or to groups he is affiliated with. I wasn't able to find any additional sources but a couple of blog entries and some reposted press releases. Looks like an autobiography. MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:RS can be quickly added. Self-published sources or publications by the subject, do not in themselves establish notability. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the article: Fishel Jacobs. I used the Chuck Norris article as my template. I believe the issues raised above are incorrect.

By virtue of that same argument: "all the links are subject's sites or to groups he is affiliated with," the Chuck Norris article should be deleted!

Every single source for Mr. Norris is somehow connected to his life, whether its films he did, columns he wrote, books he published.

Jacobs has been published by publishing house which he has no connection with, personally. His awards are from organizations which he has no connection with personally. The sites he serves on as Talmudic authority are not connected with him in any shape, form or manner. The articles and interviews he's given are from News outlets worldwide which he has no connection with whatsoever.

Finally, I am troubled by the fact that the discussion above lists this "deletion" in terms of "Israeli" or "Jewish" groups. My article did not mean to portray this individual in those terms. He is a proud American, and the above suggestions listing him in these groups is offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriamrosenfeld (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find Reliable Sources that he is Notable? That's what's missing. Check these links to get a better understanding of how this works. Simply comparing to another article isn't enough. There is nothing to be offended about this article being listed in the Wikipedia Israeli and Judaism deletion sorting. It simply alerts people in these groups that there is a discussion taking place which they might share an interest in. Shlomke (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this thoughtful response. I am a reader of Jacobs' books, and have been following his career. I appreciate these insights and information and will attempt to follow them.

Frankly, a main problem is the technical side of Wikipedia. I am a professional, but not very experienced in Wikipedia format.

I will insert Notability ensurement material according to this kind direction. And hope it might suffice.

Unfortunately, I still find it disturbing listing this article under Jewish/Israeli. The man's reach is much further. But, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriamrosenfeld (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article. I've updated the article with books published by major U.S. publishing houses featuring stories about the subject of my article. Likewise for many magazines including from England, Germany, Israel and the U.S. those which are paper as well as online. As well as radio shows in the U.S., and Israel.

I've read the Notability suggestions on the Notability page of Wikipedia. And it is clear to me that this article conforms to any number of criteria.

I therefore ask that the deletion suggestion of Deletion be removed immediately. --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriamrosenfeld (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly fits into any number of criteria of Wikipedia Notability. I ask that this deletion suggestion is omitted. --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not that this article lacks reliable sources, but such as they are, they are entirely insufficient to establish the over-all WP:N of this subject. Furthermore, being a black belt in karate, doing good works in prisons, becoming an officer and writing a few minor unheard of books does NOT make this person qualify for WP:BIO. There are hundreds of millions of very highly productive and extremely able people like this in the world but they do not all deserve Wikipedia articles. The article reads like a violation Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Self-promotion and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Promotional article production on behalf of clients. Also note problems here with WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTMYSPACE. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have kept strictly to the Notability rules laid out in Wikipedia on writing this article. The above arguments would apply to the Chuck Norris article, as well. Yet, I do not see them aimed there.

Following are some of the Wikipedia guidelines to Notability

1. 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 partial listing of newspaper articles, books published, radio stations, and magazines all have one thing in commong-- they are not connected with the subject of the article.

In researching writing of this article, I've noted that other articles on living persons do, indeed, quote from magazines or publications which are financially or organizationally related to the subject of that article. Yet, I did not find those sources flagged. Here that is not the case.

2. Additional criteria

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. (Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.)

a. Any biography a. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.

This has been largely and numerously documented regarding my article.

b. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This has been largely and numerously documented regarding my article.

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

This has been largely and numerously documented regarding my article.

c. Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

Beyond the above, this article adheres to all the levels of quality demanded by Wikipedia, including but not limited to (following are quotes from Wikipedia pages):

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Articles should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

All said, this article adheres -- no less than many other articles about living persons, if not more so -- to all rules found in Wikipedia guidelines, and I request it remains.--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Kings Book Series

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

Article has no assertion of notability and no third party sources. When I looked for some additional sourcing, I wasn't able to find anything but a few blogs and some reposted press releases. Looks like this article was uploaded by the author. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed. Does not pass WP:RS. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, assuming no further sources found. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non notable. Shlomke (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is ridiculous. This Wikipedia article presents an important moral and educational book series launched by an established and respected publisher. The author of the series is an accomplished published author. The concept behind the educational series is based on Ecclesiastes 9:14. Is that, too, not worthy of an article?

The second book in the series has just been published. The third books is in production.

I suggest that those of you claim to be patrolling these articles for "authenticity," or "notability," would research the word humility. Stop trying to gather Wikipedia brownie points as online editors and read Wikipedia rules of Notability. This article fulfills those rules. I, the poster of the article, request this suggestion for deletion is removed, immediately according to those rules of Notability.--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This deletion is tied in with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishel Jacobs editor of these books that are very minor in the pantheon of Jewish let alone general literature. Not every Jewish childrens' book, of which there are thousands should get its own Wikipedia article. The author of this article means well but needs more time, as she admits, to familiarize herself with Wikipedia's guidelines, but as it stands this articles seems like a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Promotional article production on behalf of clients. IZAK (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I originally posted this article, it had extensive source material including: Talmudic sources, Mid-Ages scholarly commentaries as well as accepted Jewish philosophers and thinkers. Someone deleted that material, claiming it was irrelevant.

I, the poster of this article, believe the editors of these articles are often not familiar with the material. This is not another children's book. It's a series, the third installation of which is presently readying for press.

The editors are doing the public an injustice by paying too much attention to material and subjects of real academic and moral value.

If you're interested in some junk on Wikipedia, please note and I can point you in the right direction to expend some beneficial energy. Miriam --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) --Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)--Miriamrosenfeld (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally posted by User:Rabbijacobs. Do you/did you operate that account as well? - MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this book in particular is notable--i.e., where it has been remarked upon substantially by published, third party sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Secret ^account 15:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope Map Professional

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

Non-notable software product. Only self-published hits on web search and nothing on news search. PROD contested by author who acknowledges being the document project manager at Ambitiongroup: [23]. Favonian (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: ... helps managers to visualize business cases. ... With Scope Map Professional the user rebuilds a business case by using a graphical chain that connects logical relationships between objective, requirement, solution and deliverable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, added the CSD template. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ves (Music Producer)

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

no notability shown for this (auto?)bio. working with non notable artists does not make someone notable. no coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. - Altenmann >t 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete producer with no notable productions, despite the article's claim of supposedly being active for 15 years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stable Micro Systems

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

Promotional article which would require a complete rewrite to meet guidelines. Not clear how this subject might meet WP:CORP though, I'm finding zero mentions of this company in google news and the book reference might demonstrate the notability of that employee but not the company as a whole. RadioFan (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failes WP:CORP, also note WP:COI: creator's name is also the name of a manager at the company[24]. MuffledThud (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, makes no minimal case of importance, and unambiguous advertising: a leading manufacturer.... marketed on every continent through a network of hand-picked distributors and agents... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per Smerdis. Dalekusa (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy And I think we might have WP:SNOW near. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In development of this article the following articles were used as a guide: Instron, Brookfield Engineering, Zwick Roell Group. The content is similar, the external links are similar. Stable Micro Systems article at least gives a background to the scientific area of application. Stable Micro Systems is also as notable other than than it is a UK company. Please suggest changes or give reason why the afore-mentioned articles should not be deleted. Jo Smewing (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I appreciate that you looked to elsewhere for a guide in creating this article, other articles are not what is used to determine whether a particular article should be deleted or not. Notability guidelines are the only guide used.--RadioFan (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible: appears to be clear advertising, with no evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larson Middle School

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources, no reason for notability. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Troy School District (Michigan). New article by a new editor, and we want to encourage you to keep contributing to Wikipedia; however, the general rule here is that high schools get their own article, and middle and elementary schools get a paragraph in the article about the school district where they are located. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Blue Ribbon school (1986-87) and we regard Blue Ribbon schools as notable. Plenty of additional claims to notability here. Proper research was not carried out before nomination. TerriersFan (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. Blue Ribbon schools are notable. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Terriers saves another school! Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per TerriersFan. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. Well done, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this ludicrous that we have to include every Blue Ribbon school. Even if it is an elementary school, it still deserves an article. What is there to say about an elementary school that received Blue Ribbon? They don't have any athletics or extra-curricular activities that high schools have. What are we supposed to say about elementary schools? It's pretty much Wikipedia is just promoting the school. A school can choose not to have an informative website. And when they do, it just leaves editors with very little information to write about the school. These schools end up being just a stub on Wikipedia. Do parents really go to Wikipedia first to find good schools? Why can't they just make an appointment with the school and ask about their programs? Why come to Wikipedia? Rovea (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article as it existed when it was nominated was a good candidate for deletion, but Terriersfan's subsequent work has demonstrated that the school is notable. Thus, the article should be kept. However, the current article is mostly a collection of factoids about awards and distinctions the school has received; it would be nice if it could be expanded to include some other types of content. (I did a quick Google search to see what I could find, but I only managed to find some additional awards and distinctions.) --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Secret (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession EP (album)

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

Non-notable album by non-notable band... fails WP:NALBUMS... Adolphus79 (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all the rest, but merge and redirect Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal to Guns N' Roses. JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Freak Music

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

promotional article, unremarkable label, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Appears to have been written by the company itself by a blocked user. RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following artist pages linked from this page because they lack significant 3rd party coverage to meet notability guidelines. The articles here have been edited largely by the artists themselves or usernames matching the label name and appear to be promotional in nature.:

Even if I can't find any notable reference, the article on Swashbuckle (band) is present on the Italian Wikipedia, so I think it's relevant enough. Here's the article: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckle
- Comment Presence on another volunteer edited wikipedia does not demonstrate notability. The article should likely be deleted there as well. What is your connection with this band?--RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The English Wikipedia article is just a translation of the Italian one, so slavishly close as even to use "actually" as a translation of "attualmente", which looks like "actually" but actually means "at present". However, the Italian article has no references at all, so to use it as a justification for the English one, which has some (although inadequate) references is crazy. Also the Italian article has in the past been tagged as being unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that references have been recently added to Swashbuckle (band)‎, however they are all primary sources which do nothing to establish the notability of the subject.--RadioFan (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - in fact I should say speedy delete. I have looked at all of the articles, and checked all of their references. Virtually all of the refs are clearly to primary sources, and I can't really see much assertion of significance in the articles either. There is no evidence of notability for any of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable information from all these articles into Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal. Thal is clearly notable; he has been a regular member of Guns N' Roses (#6 in Criteria for musicians and ensembles), played on their album Chinese Democracy which went Platinum (criteria 3), and also tours with Lita Ford (criteria 6 again). --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal might be able to meet notability guidelines but the only claim that is backed-up by a reference is the connection with Guns and Roses. If no references can be found backing up all the other claims then perhaps Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal should be selectively merged into Guns and Roses. Also, what notable information did you see in the other articles as worthy of merging into Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal? they seem related only by label.--RadioFan (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm, good point. I'm willing to look for sources for Thal. If I can't find much, I can merge into Guns N' Roses. I didn't mean to say I actually found anything notable in the other articles—just that we could look. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment I have spent some time cleaning up Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal and adding sources. I think there is enough there to be its own article. I have not found anything in reliable sources about all his sideproject, so those should all be deleted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Primary source refs no notability Cynof Gavuf 12:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you review the work I did on the Thal article? You are saying they should all be deleted? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Ron Thal Thanks to Spike Wilbury for the work he has done in chasing up references. He has established that Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal just about has evidence of notability, but not much. For example, one of the sources given says The Islanders have a new ad campaign featuring music by Ron (Bumblefoot) Thal...I'd be more impressed if I had heard of Mr. Thal before today, but I have heard of Guns N' Roses and not much more, except that "Bumblefoot" is the name of a disease of birds and rodents. OK, not all the sources are as minimal as that, but altogether his notability seems to be based on membership of a notable band, rather than individual notability. Spike Wilbury says Thal is clearly notable; he has been a regular member of Guns N' Roses (#6 in Criteria for musicians and ensembles), but he may not have noticed that that guideline also says Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band. Thus the correct thing is to redirect his article to the band's article, merging anything from his present article that seems worth keeping. On the other hand we seem to have a clear consensus that the other four articles should all be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James. I am okay with merging, since there is not much left about Thal after I cut out all the fat. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwiklook

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

This package does not meet the requirements of WP:PRODUCT. The company itself is not notable enough for its own article either considering the lack of any mention on Google News and that it relies on a .biz website for advertising itself; in fact, I note that an article for FutureIT has previously been deleted as a promotional article created by the same user. Ash (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by user:Anthony.bradbury -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J-Diva

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

Article is about a musical artist who has only put out music on myspace. No reliable sources are writing about her. Fails notability Whpq (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite her "skillz", appears to be completely non-notable. LadyofShalott 13:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. No credible claims of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As Above. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of the Jews in Spain. I dide the redirect and left the history, any interested parties may merge any salvagable material Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murcia Jewish community

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murcia jewish community

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

No reliable sources. No assertion as to why the jewish community in Murcia is notable or culturally significant. No media coverage. No references added since last AfD in 2008.

The books mentioned in the last AfD [25] talk about jews in Spain in past centuries, mentioning sometimes Murcia, but they do not express that jews in Murcia had greater impact than in the rest of Spain, so that information could be included in History of the Jews in Spain. Anna Lincoln 11:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Spain-related deletions and Judaism-related deletions. --Closeapple (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to History of the Jews in Spain. Nothing in this article is specific to Murcia except a bit of POV-pushing about how pleasant it would for Jews that migrate to the Polaris World resort chain that has several facilities nearby; indeed, looks like it might have been created as a WP:COATRACK. No information improvement at all since previous AfD, only spelling cleanups. --Closeapple (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. I would merge, but there are no sources on this article, so I would lean to delete first. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at present. Does not seem very notable either and can be covered in short in the History of the Jews in Spain article (if sourced). Shlomke (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main History of the Jews in Spain. There are many fragments that build a complicated history and this is one of them. IZAK (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much worth merging. GlassCobra 22:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was - Speedy Deleted and salted (CSD#A7). Wikipedia is not for promoting you and your mates sports team. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team touchdown

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

No indication of notability; no reliable sources of information found. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Team touchdown has twice been speedied under A7, but was recreated with the claim that the team had been covered in the national press for competing at a national level. Taking this as a claim of importance, I removed the speedy tag, asked the creator to cite this claim, and said I would prod if no evidence was forthcoming. Meanwhile I looked for sources to establish notability myself: it's not an easy term to Google, but I could find none. (Searching the archive of the newspaper that purportedly covered the team brought no hits.) I added a prod tag, which was removed by an editor who had also been making dubious edits to the article. The page may in fact be suitable for speedy deletion, but I've got too embroiled in this one to be sure whether I'm making a good call. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article appears to be a hoax; at best it seems thoroughly non-notable. Sssoul (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not feel that this would be eligible under Speedy Deletion Criteria A7, as they assert notability. The Speedy Deletion Criteria do not require proof of notability, merely the claim. This is also a contested PROD, as mentioned by Gonzonoir above. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete The article's creator was wrong about the press thing and it has been edited. The team exist and u can find a draw proving so at the refernces in the page. Also the team does exist and could quite possible win the D1 Grand Final which would be a huge achievement and worthy of notability. The creator is noth the only person who has edited this valuable and educational resource. Don't tear it down. Special Operations (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)— Special Operations (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Don't delete~~ Seeing as how the Howzat is running the event the team in question is participating in the Howzat site is a completely viable and usefel reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special Operations (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)— Special Operations (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: the Don't delete has been struck, as each editor can only make a recommendation once -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Special Operations: No one is saying that the team does not exist. The issue isn't its existance, but its notability and the verifiability of the information. May I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability, as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Actually, I think WP:CSD#A7 "no credible claim of significance or importance" covers it exactly: the actual article makes no claim - it's just an under-14 indoor soccer team "made up of 8 players from Merewether High School". The only reference is the website of a leisure centre, and even there I don't find any mention. However, as it's been PRODded and dePRODded we'd better go through with this. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was going on this version which claims "This team are competitive in national level as seen in The Daily Telegraph, 25/8/09". As it stands, I think this may be eligible for an A7 Speedy. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete~~ "Team Touchdown" is worthy of notability because of their potential and the article would be informative to anyone in the comp, students, teachers. At the most extreme it deserves a cleanup not a complete deletion not a revert either as many credible facts have been implemented into between various "drafts" 10:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special Operations (talk • contribs)
- Note: the Don't delete has been struck, as each editor can only make a recommendation once -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Potential" notability is not sufficient! Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - correction to my comment above - in the leisure centre website referenced, if you look under Indoor sports/Draws/soccer/Friday night junior, you do indeed find this team's name listed, along with more than 30 others. Sorry, boys, this is not the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" required for notability. Yes, it proves your team exists, yes, there are "credible facts" we don't doubt that, but that's not enough for a Wikipedia article. JohnCD (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PlaviKit.com

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

no proof of notability. Ironholds (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the page are correct. It does not conflict with any other post. Links are correct. It is all easy to check. If there is something I can correct let me know, other then that, it is up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor marceta (talk • contribs) 10:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding; it is the importance of the website/company that is in question. Ironholds (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, merely advertising. Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not assert notability. GregorB (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete under both names. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tachyboloid

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

OR article on a neologism. TimothyRias (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to rapidity space (descriptive phrase per policy)Rgdboer (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Article appears to have supporting references in academic publications - they're just not cited in proper Wikipedia style. In the absence of an expert in the subject matter who's able to check the sources, I'd err on the side of assuming good faith and keep the article (possibly with a "potential original research" tag at the top). - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The comments from the author on the article's talk page point to it being original research/synthesis. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V unless an expert in the domain thinks that the article has salvageable content that could be used under another title. The "supporting references" do not use the word tachyboloid at all, as far as I saw (but I only took the most cursory glance), and there are zero Google hits outside Wikipedia. The author of the article seems to have gone on a bit of a spree adding tachyboloid references to other articles (e.g., [26], [27], [28]), so assuming this term is as fictitious as it appears to be, someone will need to go through Rgdboer's edit history and revert these additions. —Caesura ^(t) 16:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move Descriptive phrase title for same subject rapidity space Rgdboer (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rgdboer has changed the article ("Tachyboloid") to a redirect before waiting for this AfD to close. Now I am unable to view the merits of the article and decide whether it should be kept. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rgdboer (the author) has moved the article to Rapidity space, and amended the terminology in the article. Cassandra 73 (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Delete. This term is a neologism that does not (yet) has widespread use. It is not notable of itself. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Tachyboloid and the fork at rapidity space. Talk page shows they are both neologisms and content is OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, which appear to be OR or original synthesis. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete both WP:Neologisms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe and Ellen

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

Non-notable musical duo with no significant write up in reliable sources. No charted albums. A Google search reveals little outside myspace, facebook, youtube, etc. (though their name provides lots of mentions of other "Joe and Ellen"s). Fails WP:BAND. Astronaut (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence or assertion of notability outside Tulsa, no claim against any criterion of WP:NMUSIC, and insufficient indpendent reliable sources supporting the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then there are numerous artists on wikipedia who should be deleted. What about the fact that Joe and Ellen appear on a major-label album released by famous drummer Jamie Oldaker, Mad Dogs and Okies, alongside famous names like Eric Clapton, Vince Gill, Peter Frampton, and Willie Nelson?

It's true, Joe and Ellen's career is just taking off, but that doesn't mean I as a fan have no right to make a wikipedia entry for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor1149 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Information about their record label does not appear in the article (that I can see). I would suggest that if you can source that information, you add it to the article, as WP:BAND gives a presumption of notability in favour of artists with two albums released on a major label. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - There you go, information about Joe and Ellen's appearance on the Mad Dogs and Okies album on Concord Records has been added. Joe and Ellen might not be famous yet, but they are highly respected by a circle of musicians of high calibur. Jamie Oldaker's interest in them is considerably noteworthy, seeing how it led to them sharing an appearance on record with Eric Clapton, Willie Nelson, and Peter Frampton, for god's sake. How is that not a serious musical duo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor1149 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Not quite there. First of all, the article doesn't say anything about Mad Dogs & Okies being on Concord (although Google searches suggest that that's not in serious dispute). Secondly, they're a guest artist on that album - it's not their album. Thirdly, WP:BAND requires two albums released on a major record label, and, dependening on whether you count MD&O, they have either one or nil. So they still fail both WP:N and WP:BAND and my vote stays Delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "If that's the case, then there are numerous artists on wikipedia who should be deleted." Yes, that's certainly true. But it doesn't mean this one shouldn't be. That's the old WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument and it holds no water on AfD. "Joe and Ellen's career is just taking off, but that doesn't mean I as a fan have no right to make a wikipedia entry for them." It also doesn't mean you should. If they don't pass any of the criteria at WP:BAND then they don't belong here yet, and right now it looks like they don't. No albums on a major label or large independent label, just a guest spot; only local coverage; no tours; not in national rotation; neither was previously in any other notable bands. Sorry, but they're going to have to get better established before they merit an article here. — Gwalla | Talk 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Wikipedia would be honored by Joe and Ellen's presence. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor1149 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We would be. Get them to log on and start editing, we'd all be thrilled. The article, on the other hand, has problems. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying they should be editing their own article? I mean, you're joking, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.102.176 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that we'd love to have them as editors in general, in the same way we'd love any editor. But my comment was a smart-aleck response to the facetious comment that we'd be honoured by their presence and you should ignore it just as you'd ignore what it was replying to. Take my apologies for starting an irrelevant tangent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: And that is WP:ILIKEIT. You may want to read through Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to familiarize yourself with the sorts of arguments that are routinely rejected out of hand at Articles for Deletion. If you think that Joe and Ellen qualify for an article under Wikipedia's guidelines (see WP:BAND), you should address those guidelines and how the subject meets them, and eschew arguments that amount to special pleading. — Gwalla | Talk 22:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Osmeña

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

Delete Being a 3rd generation descendant of a nation's president and child of a mayor doesn't meet WP:NOTE on it's own, and there's no other claim aside from being president of a local real estate agency and a trading company to justify inclusion. DJBullfish 07:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Basket of Puppies 08:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spot-on case of children of political figures not receiving legacy notability, a collection under WP:GNG. If the child of a US Senator or even president doesn't meet notability standards without an independent reason to consider it, from the Philippines would be no different... just to diffuse any later claims of Western-centric article preference if it comes up. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think notability is inherited. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 06:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I would not object to an editorial move to Rape in the United States. Also, a merge discussion could take place at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rape in the United States of America

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

This article is a nearly identical copy and paste from the United States portion of the Rape article, with only two or three very small blurbs added, all of which can easily be incorporated into the original article. Nothing has been done to distinguish this from the original U.S. rape article content and is therefore redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has plenty of things that could be added to it, as I have stated in the talk page. [29] One section was copied over, adding 2868 bytes to what was already there, most of it that chart. The article was 5,148 bytes before you tagged it for AFD. That means 2280 bytes added to it. An article isn't about its size though. Are there not plenty of references out there about this topic? Does the article not have plenty of potential to expand? Rape is handled differently in different nations, based on the laws, willingness/requirements to prosecute, how the media portrays it, etc. Dream Focus 08:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[30] Google Book search has a lot of results, when searching for "Rape in the United States", it something well documented. Plenty of coverage in reliable third party media gives the article a right to exist. And it is a very important topic to have. Dream Focus 08:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - The problem is that you know there was opposition to the creation of this primarily spun out article and yet you have been content not to touch it, despite your protests that this was an important article, since the opposition was raised. I posted the following in response to your contention about usable unique content here, which said: "Regarding the amount of content, the only countable content for size is the "usable" content. In that regard, there was, at the time of my posting, 3670 bytes of usable content, and what you added is only 805 bytes, or only slightly over 20% of the content and as Johnuniq noted, the only significant content is what you took from the main article, written by others and unattributable. As I noted, you moved an entire section to start a new article without benefit of first broaching the subject to other editors, and to which, now, several editors have posted concerns with that action. We see a problem here or otherwise, comment would not have been made. As I noted, consider moving all of the content to a subpage in your userspace until you've actually had time to write it. And as I noted, at present, it would qualify for deletion based on content substantially identical to already existing material." I suggested you move the content to your userspace and develop it into something different than what already exists, a point which you repeatedly ignored in order to diss the concerns over attribution. There was no expansion or other attention paid to this in any way after that. Concerns were raised, ignored and dismissed, while you did nothing to change the fact that it is primarily duplicated content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The topic seems well covered in other areas, however, cf. Sexual violence in South Africa, there could be scope for this article if some notable/exceptional feature of rape in the US is found. As it stands, this article seems like a pointless localisation. Jnthn0898 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient referenced info for a standalone article. Also it may be inevitable that such an article will be written. Why not do it now? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Rationale for deletion will not valid after removing the duplicated material at the original article. It is a notable topic and splitting it from the original rape article helps with preventing systemic bias. It will be inevitable that such an article would be created. May as well split it out now to avoid the difficulties of splitting at a latter date. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have split out more information from the rape article and added it to Rape in the United States of America. There was a heap of info that was biasing the article heavily to the US. The rape article still has a systemic bias toward certain countries and I have suggested that the info is split out. See the talk page. Now imagine a scenario where the rape article had all the Rape in the United States of America info PLUS info from the 200 odd other countries about rape. It would be a rather large page! Best we start with individual country articles now... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate and unnecessary spin out from Rape made just by copy/pasting info with little new information added, and it smacks of Americanism and systemic bias. Its creator states that he is just getting started (which is what a sandbox is for) and lists further areas he intends for the page, however none of those items are unique nor specific to the US, and instead should be applied to the main article. Rape is not so unique among other countries that it needs separate articles for every last country. The main Rape article is long because of too much redundancy. Clean up the original before looking at where possible split outs may be appropriate. However considering it already has had massive splits for such areas, this particular one seems particularly unnecessary.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Wildhartlivie posted on Collectonian's talk page, to alert her to this AFD. Don't know if that counts as canvassing or not, since it was just one person. As for your comment about "Americanism and systemic bias", I find that ridiculous based on the subject. Is a list of the presidents of the United States, or the many other articles dealing with this nation, "Americanism"? Famous people in English speaking countries have far more articles on the English language Wikipedia, than those of other nations, but you don't delete it because of the perception of "Americanism and systemic bias". Dream Focus 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that does not qualify as canvassing, I notified one editor who I am aware was concerned about the article. Please read WP:CANVAS so you can learn the difference between one post and inappropriate canvassing in order to sway an outcome. That is no different than posting notices of deletion discussions on projects, which was posted as well. You've been on Wikipedia far too long for that to be anything but a blatant attempt to discredit a nomination for deletion. It's nice to know you're checking up on my posts, though. I'd have to comment, at this point, that you've put more effort into this AfD than you have put into the article you spun out and the only effort that has been put into the article you created and abandoned since then has not been by you. Please don't attempt to carry other issues onto this discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence is a bit ironic. First off, assume good faith. If you thought she'd vote opposite of you, would you have alerted her talk page? I don't think so. And you are getting off topic. I did not abandon the article. I just don't work on the same article each day. Articles have things added to them over time, by different contributing editors. AFD is on commenting on the worthiness of the topic of an article, not what you think about the content. Dream Focus 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only irony is in first saying you don't know if it is canvassing or not, but electing to imply that it is, then telling me to assume good faith, while in the same post then clearly accusing me of canvassing. Please, run on over to WP:AN/I and inquire into whether my telling one editor, with whom you have had ongoing WP:AN/I and WP:WQA issues, is canvassing. Again, I clearly made one post, to one editor, who had expressed concern about the article and I do not suspect that your intention in announcing that I posted a note to her was either good faith or well-intentioned, considering your issues with her. In the meantime, you have never made one more meaningful contribution to that article since just after it was created. Perhaps I should post a concern at WP:AN/I about waffling into a direct accusation of violating WP:CANVAS the second time you mentioned it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wildharlive on talk page. Ikip (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the bias exists if the info remains in the rape article. Moving the US info to its own article stops the bias that is created for anyone reading the rape article. A Rape in the United States of America article has no bias for the reader. It is clearly an article about "rape" in the "US". The rape article should contain information that is generic with little or no focus on a particular country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it's not a good idea to start an article as a copy-and-paste (unless you're doing it user space), it's an encyclopedic enough topic. I do appreciate the concerns about whether this will open the door to a bunch of articles about rape in "every last country". However, I disagree with the idea that rape is the same in the United States as it is in other countries. Perhaps, like murder, the ultimate result of a rape is the same worldwide. However, the differences are in how the act of rape is treated in a particular nation, both legally and culturally. What constitutes rape, how it's punished, how victims are treated, whether there are cultural barriers to whether it's even reported-- those are not universal. Mandsford (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let us not focus on the "copy and paste". That is now fixed since I have deleted the duplicated material from the rape page. Since WP is always growing it follows that some articles should be split. Due to the large amount of US info in the article it was a logical move to split it out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment.... Crime in the United States exists as an article as well as all the other ones in Category:Crime by country. Rape in the United States of America is just the next step in the growth of WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Rape in the United States. As Mandsford has suggested, there are plenty of ways this article can go to make it substantially different from Rape and there is plenty of verifiable information out there to do so. Location (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already edited both article so that there is no overlap. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Rape in the United States per User:Location. Obviously notable per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to be a pointless fork so far, which the forker him/herself is having trouble justifying, according to the talk page. I am not convinced that there is anything about rape in the USA that sufficiently distinguishes it from rape in other countries (or in general) to have a dedicated article. pablo_hablo. 20:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actual read the [talk page]? Different nations have different problems, investigation techniques, laws, ways the media covers it, how society judges it, etc. Its not the same everywhere. The article has great potential on its own. Dream Focus 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actual read lots of comments from you about how, having created this article, you had not a scooby what you were going to do with it. I actual think that there is, possibly, potential for an article dealing with social and legal aspects of rape in different countries, if actually editors who actual write content get involved. pablo_hablo. 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with creating an article that is split out of another and then marking it for further work by other editors (who may have a much better knowledge of the topic). The way WP works is that everybody does what they can do. Some build the structure, some write the content. I freely admit that I have littered WP with articles that are very stubby skeleton pages with an expand tag. WP is a work in progress so there is nothing wrong with that. Note that the Rape in the United States of America is of a sufficient length to be a standalone article. Merging it back will introduce systemic bias into the rape article. Note that I have split out Rape in the United Kingdom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and presented article on an important subject that clearly meets our inclusion policies. Per Alan Liefting and per WP not paper topics should be split out into seperate articles to prevent them getting too long. Per Mandsford it should be possible to find sufficient sources on the US related aspects of the subject to bring this to at least GA status if editors so desire. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Rape in the United States, or in the alternative, merge to Rape per above. No surprise this article was put up for deletion, despite being well sourced. Ikip (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems entirely acceptable as a spinoff article. There might not be enough sources to write a 'Rape in X' article for every country, but there certainly is for the United States. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced. Notable. Perfectly reasonable as a spin off article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Putting aside the oath that git the article here there is little doubt that the subject is notable and sourcible. Plenty of books have been written about this subject and if any country has amassed statistics on rape it is the US. Doesn't the FBI or similar track specific rape crimes, or at least serial rapists? -- Banjeboi 14:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pico ISV

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

A nonnotable neologism coined in an ~~anopogy~~ analogy with Micro ISV. Close to none google hits - Altenmann >t 04:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence in the article or on Google of this being a term widely in use. Fails WP:N for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also, here I thought you were teaching me a new word in "anopogy" but apparently that's also a non-notable neologism coined by you. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But I didn't write a w'article for it :-) - Altenmann >t 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This isn't technically a speedy deletion, but there is no way this will survive AfD. So I'm IAR, and deleting. Ged UK 11:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drink Bottles

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

A piece of not-very-original research. Warrah (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While not patent nonsense, it is just as useless. DarkAudit (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Looks more like unoriginal vandalism to me. Astronaut (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It is really sad we have to even debate ones like this. Roundfile immediately please. JBsupreme (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I would say Wp:NOR, but it's not even original. I can't believe that we're having to waste our time typing rationales for this sort of thing. *sigh*DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, no credible claims to notability Ged UK 11:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Dynamite

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

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert when it comes to wrestling, but I can't see any notability here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a 14 year old kid with a backyard and a trampoline. Wikipedia is littered with the ashes of hundreds, if not thousands, of deleted backyard wrestling articles. This one will meet the same fate. DarkAudit (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability, and I can't find much in the way of secondary sources upon a brief Google search. Current article is unencyclopedic as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fail to see how a 14-year old kid can claim to be a notable wrestler. Claims related to DWE don't stand up to scrutiny when it turns out DWE is his own invention (see Talk:Dylan Dynamite). Simply unencyclopedic vanity. Astronaut (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Zagreb Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture

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

We have an article on the University of Zagreb: we don't need individual articles on each faculty JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Zagreb#Departments. Faculties can be independently notable but there is no evidence that this one is. TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as noted, rather than a simple redirect, to save useful info. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. there's nothing really worth merging, and I do not see a use for a redirect for the department--especially one that starts with the name of the university. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete, but not keep this article as is. Materialscientist (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Department is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG; nothing worse merging, redirect unnecessary. GlassCobra 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flip Cup. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Flip Cup

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

Yet another drinking game. Shadowjams (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded nom - The article title is a variant of Flip cup, and apparently has been institutionalized through a tournament at a casino. ~~The mere fact that there's a casino tournament~~[The casino tournament is not even different than this "variant", just a standard Flip cup tournament. That leaves this version of Flip cup with no notability]~~is not an indication of notability~~. One option for this article is a redirect to Flip cup too. Shadowjams (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 175,000 google hits for "survivor flip cup". 0 hits for google news archive search. 1,036 google blog hits. Perhaps it can be rescued if some of these hits are worthwhile. Perhaps the article creator will see this comment and try to add references.--Milowent (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only see 206 results. -Verdatum (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's just the juxtaposition of words that's showing up (and google doesn't require every word matches either). I guarantee you "Flip Cup Coors Light" will get a load of hits too, but obviously it's not notable as a standalone. Shadowjams (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Flip cup article is tiny, and this is merely a variant. Even with excellent sources, it doesn't need it's own article. -Verdatum (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor drinking-game variant, no reliable sources and it doesn't help that the article on the parent game, Flip cup, doesn't even bother mentioning this variant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Flip Cup. Ivanvector (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - To Flip Cup. There are enough sources to prove its existence (I think) but not enough to warrent its own article, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finchley Arrow

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

I have failed to find any significant third-party coverage of this subject. The article doesn't explain WHY the article subject is notable, so this article fails WP:N (and/or WP:GNG), WP:RS, and possibly WP:V. ArcAngel (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, no outside sources. It's just a website. Absolutely nothing special about that. DarkAudit (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet, the paper is only two months old. Its also a specifically local WP:Notability (local interests) paper. Grim²³ ★ 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. No info on circulation, no awards won. No more notable than someone's hobby at this point. Distributed in one postal zone. Edison (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Whitmore_Lake,_Michigan#Harvest Festival. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitmore Lake Harvest Festival

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

Non-notable event Pdcook (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but there's no reason the festival can't be mentioned in the Whitmore Lake, Michigan article. In fact, I'll go add it now since this article is not long for the world.--Milowent (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We could redirect this article to Whitmore_Lake,_Michigan#Harvest Festival. Pdcook (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: article creator (wikipedia newby) removed the AfD template today, but I reinstated it. It would be nice to get some more comments on this Afd.--Milowent (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Whitmore_Lake,_Michigan#Harvest Festival - event isn't notable on its own. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POP (Company)

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

Average company doing average things. Referenced to one minor mention in minor local media. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as written nothing notable about the company, apart from some geek speek and some unclear acronyms/abbeviations it doesnt actually say what the company does or has done for its clients. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Titenkov

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

Lack of coverage to show notability: a Google Search on "Ivan Titenkov" gives 999 hits. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What do those hits cover? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly nothing (in terms of coverage from reliable, independent sources) to show notability, which was my main point -- not the exact number of hits. Only reason I mentioned it was because I was surprised how low it was in comparison to how accomplished the articles makes him out to be. Also, looking more closely at the results, there see to be a Russian politician with the same name by the way. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I non-vote weak delete as unreferenced BLP. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu ^(t / c) 17:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's the subject's entry on the Ukranian Wikipedia, seems to be similar layout, also recently created by Grinpin and also without references. I am not having luck finding useable english newspaper references to him.--Milowent (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject's listed accomplishments look notable enough to me, IF an independent reference can be provided. I searched English sources for mention of his world championship, but the only thing I found was Wikipedia and its mirrors. Much information can be found on Ivan Titenkov the politician, but not on the martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since no one has provided any independent sources, I feel that deletion is the only option. I'll change my vote if adequate reliable sourcing is provided. Papaursa (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsu Shin Gen

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

Neither the article nor a a quick search turned turn up the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required by WP:N. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu ^(t / c) 17:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another attempt to promote a single "branded" form of martial arts by its practitioners -Drdisque (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I went to the Swedish wikipedia page for this art and found that it also had no independent references, even though it was created years ago. Without references I don't see how this art passes the notability requirements. Papaursa (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to delete - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Perez de Tagle

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

This article appears to be written like a CV or other trade advertisement. I almost think the article could be given as {{db-bio}}. Please delete this article as an ad. for the subject. V. Joe (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Unblinking Eye (Everything Is Broken)

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL; no refs. Radiopathy •talk• 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significnat coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have found no WP:RS concerning this album, only fansites, first party sources, blogs, and mirrors. However, I found two reliable sources the BBC and NME (these were published after the nomination date) that confirm that the single of the same name will be released 23 November 2009. This article is about the album not the single. The artist is certainly notable, but the references I found are primarily about an upcoming tour with a trivial mention of the upcoming single. So my !vote is delete and if the single makes a splash it could easily be recreated with a change in focus. J04n(talk page) 04:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no RS providing significant coverage of the album. Gongshow ^Talk 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smip

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

Unreferenced neologism with no demonstration of notable usage. Can find no trace of this online apart from link in article to site of product with this name. Unreferenced, appears to be WP:PROMO of non-notable product. MuffledThud (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scroogle

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIBM

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

Contested prod. Inadequately referenced, misleading and spammy article intended purely to promote a non-notable commercial institution. There is no evidence that IIBM is "distinguished". Its UK "accreditation" is from a non-notable body that is still on probation, is not itself fully accredited and certainly can't confer accreditation (see http://www.odlqc.org.uk/kgm.htm). Fails WP:N, WP:VER, WP:SPAM andy (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following identical article:

andy (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced advertisement. Alexius08 (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability, probably an advertisement. I couldn't find any news sources. If there was any coverage, it would probably be about this place being a scam fake university. --Coasttocoast (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement. JIP | Talk 06:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tokutomi

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. no evidence of substantial acting career or peer recognition. dubious claim to notability. gnews. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly O'Dell

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kelly O'Dell

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

The subject of this article fails the WP:PORNBIO criteria for Notability, and otherwise does not appear to meet general standards of Notability. --David Thompson (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editix xml editor

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per concern my close being problematic - this can't be linked to from a list as a redirect, and there probably wasn't enough discussion. The previous discussion that I closed is here. I am neutral. — Jake Wartenberg 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not neutral. This product is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. No interest to write you like or not. Study the references and decide after, this is not a debate on this tool ugly or nice but on the interest to put it on wikipedia.
Delete. The sources brought by the author are not enough to establish notability. Most of them only brieftly mention the app, often as part of lists of XML editors. In some of these sources, I couldn't even find Editix mentioned at all. If the author of the app wants to have it on Wikipedia he needs to bring ONE good reliable source such as a review in a notable website, not 10 unreliable ones. Laurent (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here a sample from the Laboratory for Digital Philology showing usage for their work with editix screenshots : http://www.pizan.lib.ed.ac.uk/lab/.
"Developing Web 2.0 and XML database".. 8 references to EditiX.
Armstrong, Bruce (November 3, 2007). "Using FOP to Handle Formatting of Large Text Blocks in DataWindow Output". Extentech. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
"Ferramentas e Aplicações para a Web Semântica". Universidade Católica de Pelotas.
"Nouvelle version de Editix - version 2.0". PROgrammez! (in French). September 17, 2004. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
"European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy". Retrieved 2009-11-11.
"University of Minho". A QUERY BY EXAMPLE APPROACH FOR XML QUERYING. Retrieved 2009-11-11.
"Ferramentas e Aplicações para a Web Semântica". Universidade Católica de Pelotas.
Howard, Kevin. "XML: Visual QuickStart Guide Goldberg".
"2005 JDJ Readers' Choice Awards - Best Java Application Nominees". Retrieved 2009-11-11.
— 79.88.99.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- - Comment. Ok let's see:
    - [31] - This is not about Editix, and the app name is only mentioned twice
    - [32] - Doesn't seem to be reliable. I couldn't find any editorial policy and the review has no author.
    - [33] - unreliable self published source, and again the app is only mentioned. It's not a review.
    - [34] - name is only mentioned. Absolutely nothing is said about the app itself.
    - [35] - name is only mentioned as part of a list of XML editors.

Again, if the app was notable, you'd only need to bring ONE good source and not 10 poor ones. Laurent (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment. All your remarks Laurent, proves a wiki article is required for explaining this tool. I disagree with most of your remarks, mainly with the first reference with screenshots and explicit editix usage from a university team about language research (there's even a logo of the editix application at the right of the page). — 79.88.99.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      - WP:N requires that the "sources address the subject directly in detail", that's why an actual review would be better than all those links. In the first reference, they only briefly mention Editix. They explain how to access their database using the software, so it's not directly about the software - it's mainly about their database. Laurent (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "EditiX offers an Xpath 2 query builder for direct interrogation of the current XML file" extracted from the article. It is written "of the current XML file" not from a database, They never explain how to access a database from this tool, they use an external database "exist", they work on XML documents using editix and using XQuery and XPath request which is normal for an XML editor. Here another article http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:bOPvxzg0pO8J:www.researcherdevelopment.ed.ac.uk/RLIF/Lab_Digital_Philology_Report.pdf edimburg editix&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr. With " establish a working platform based on EditiX and eXist which is easily accessible for any researcher in this field". There're 8 references to EditiX !! — 79.88.99.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This is used by universities.— 82.230.182.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does that somehow magically make notability? That is the poorest justification I have seen on Wikipedia, random IP address. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:This is your opinion, I don't understand your "random" remark, is it a "random" remark too ?. Look at the tool references, this is what is notable or not : Here a sample from the Laboratory for Digital Philology showing usage for their work with editix screenshots : http://www.pizan.lib.ed.ac.uk/lab/.
"Developing Web 2.0 and XML database".. 8 references to EditiX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.182.104 (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still, that is one research project, and it is like saying "well because I used notepad to type up my thesis, notepad is notable" which is poor justification. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, this is not notepad, so don't compare something with very few features to another tool for your opinion. The problem is not here, the problem is : does this kind of articles is enough for saying EditiX is notable or not ?. We don't care about opinions on the tool or IP (??), we only want to know if this tool is notable for being in wikipedia or not. There's some universities articles and books on it, does is it enough ???, that's the only discussion, I say "yes" and some other say "no", the problem is that the "opposite" doesn't have arguments other like "this is not enough notable, there's only 1 reference..." or with poor understanding of the technical article. — 82.230.182.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - and books on it - That's not true, the books are not "on it" or about it, the software is barely mentioned and someone reading these sources wouldn't even learn anything about Editix other than it's an XML editor. WP:N requires that sources address the subject directly in detail.
  - the problem is that the "opposite" doesn't have arguments - How about my detailed review of your sources above? Laurent (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Never write on you Laurent. Your comments are welcome but this is only one opinion, my opinion is different from you Laurent, I consider this tool notable for being keeped. We need more opinions on the references otherwise, this is impossible to know if this tool is notable or not for wikipedia. Comments like "I like" or "I hate" are outside the debate, most comments here are this kind, absolutly no interest for keeping or deleting this article. In doubt for this article, I propose to keep definitly.
Delete Based on list of non-sources left by IP addresses. Miami33139 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We discuss on the article, not on IP, I never get an account, what's the problem ??...
Keep — 79.88.99.109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bure Family Wines

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

Winery. The only real assertion of notability is that it belongs to Valeri Bure. Of the three references, one is the winery's website, another is a directory of California wineries, and the third one is a newspaper clipping explaining that Bure has found a hobby, which this winery is. Delete, but I'm open to a merge/redirect. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The winery is a business, not a hobby. The newspaper article is from Minneapolis and the winery is in California, and non-local coverage is a strong indicator of notability. Other references to the couple and their winery can be found here. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the fact the coverage is non-local is that Valeri or Pavel Bure are household names wherever hockey has a moderate to strong following, and I would be curious to see whether either one of the Bures ~~has played against the Minnesota Wild~~ was in town on the same ~~night~~ day the article appeared. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe merge. No original research needed. Independent coverage. Significance of subject is demonstrated as Winery is the main topic of the articles. Significance of owners is also well-established. Sources are reliable news orgs - do lifestyle articles count as notable articles or must it be hard news? Some info which appears self-serving bias is simple nutritional info - winery homepage should be acceptable for this type of info. How many editors/changes needed to support notability claim? -- Ma6ic 02:38, 12 November 2009
- And that's the point. The owners are unquestionably notable, but not as winemakers. The real question is, would the winery ever have had any of the coverage it got if the owner had been an ordinary Joe with no previous claim to fame? By the way, the article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune appeared in the Sports section and was written by their Minnesota Wild columnist, Michael Russo. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. There's enough external references there. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note also Remick Ridge winery article. Collect (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India International Wine Fair

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

seems like this wine fair isn't really discussed internationally. [36]. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Some wine fairs, such as Vinexpo, are definitely notable and international in scope, but judging from web coverage this one doesn't really qualify. Tomas e (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The available sources verify that the wine fair exists, but all these sources are essentially press releases from the organizes published at various website and PR newswires. Unless independent secondary sources are found that cover the event in some detail, the subject fails WP:GNG. Abecedare (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desportivo de Cova Figueira

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

Non-notable club, fails WP:FOOTYN... also, quite possibly a hoax, due to information constantly being changed by a single editor... same editors and problems as Achda Fluminencse (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achda Fluminense) for details... Adolphus79 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it does look to exist but it doesn't seem to be notable. Giant Snowman 14:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new research from Bettia seems to establish notability. Giant Snowman 19:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a hoax-- the article was created by a longtime contributor who has been here since 2003. However, I don't think that notability is demonstrated for either the team, or the league in which it competes. It is one of several members of the Fogo Island League. I had never heard of "Fogo Island" either, but it's one of the Cape Verde Islands, and the population is 55,000. It's comparable to being one of the 20 teams in a city league in Rapid City, South Dakota. The article dates from Wikipedia's building days, when just about anything got accepted. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I noticed the same thing about the Fogo Island league, and was considering putting them all up... the hoax part is due in part to the recent constant changes to uniform colors, personnel, etc. by an IP user... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. From what I can tell, this team won the Fogo Island League on three occasions, and the winner of the league is eligible to play in the national championships. This would be the equivalent of playing in a country's top division and potentially being crowned national champions, so I would say this team is just about notable. Bettia (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bettia. Obviously I wouldn't consider the players to be notable, but it is the a champion club from its league and it is the top league in its area. Clubs in top level leagues should be notable. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - And can either of you verify said information? Or justify the constant changes to uniform colors, current roster, or addition of other clubs logos? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bit about them competing in the national championships can be verified. As for the other issue, if there is any disrputive editing then it can't be justified, that that it has anything to do with this AfD. Bettia (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is a notable team as plays in its island's championship, which is used as a direct qualifier for the inter-island league Eldumpo (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax: 'As a matter of coarse[sic], ranch dressing is the traditional substance of choice used if either partner desires a topping or added ingredient during analingus' Ged UK 11:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ponderosa position

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

No significant coverage on this neologism; possible hoax Triplestop x3 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as vandalism.--Milowent (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mehek mirza

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

I removed this article from the speedy deletion queue as it does contain several assertions of notability, being a finalist in several beauty contests and being featured in several magazines is enough to get it past CSD A7, however upon inspection all the magazines and contests are non-notable. The article was also created by MMPROMO (talk · contribs) so its creator almost certainly has a conflict of interest. Icewedge (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Assertions of notability are meaningless if there are no sources backing it up. The contest doesn't have an article on WP, and neither does any other finalist. All Google results are personal pages on social networking websites, which aren't valid sources. XXX antiuser 02:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Above comment is almost exactly what I would have said. Weird that it only shows 89 results on Google. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable. The COI is not relevant here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Lithuanian relations

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

the agreements mentioned are run of the mill for any 2 EU nations, and most of the third party coverage of these 2 nations relates to sport. [37]. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it's been a while since I've participated in one of these conversations but the fact that both countries have embassies at one another, leaders have made state visits and the fact they are EU and NATO members would cause me to say keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this could equally apply to most country combinations in Europe, I'm applying the significant coverage test here WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does possibly meet Wikipedia's guidelines. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how? otherwise this looks WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of well-documented bilateral treaties and high-level visits. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. Sports rivalries count in my book. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but are the agreements (lower level treaties) and visits subject to significant third party coverage? these agreements are standard for fellow EU countries. Greece and Lithuania might have played each other in sport but it is no rivalry unlike Russia and Lithuania in sport. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Marcusmax. Also, I do not agree with the nominator's opinion that multiple international agreements are unnotable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide evidence of significant third party coverage of these relations? these are standard bilateral agreements between almost all EU nations, some other EU nations bilateral articles have previously been deleted or redirected. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP requires that a topic be covered by reliable sources that independent of the subject before we have an article about it. This article cites no such sources, and I could not find any either. Precedent is that simply having embassies is not enough to meet the bar of WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thay Greece never officially recognised the annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR, has distinct encyclopedic value, it's expandable, and lifts this article out of mere trivial x-y relations Power.corrupts (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Armväärt

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

Person doesn't seem to satisfy neither WP:BIO nor WP:CREATIVE. Staberinde (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not satisfy me, either. JBsupreme (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Gnews finds a few Estonian sources, but I don't know the language. Should we notice some Wikiproject with some Estonian-speaking editor which may help? --Cyclopia ^talk 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know Estonian language (otherwise I probably wouldn't have felt confident to nominate her), and in my opinion those few Gnews findings don't establish proper notability.--Staberinde (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but I have an hard time understading why if you don't explain what the sources say. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.
Keep. I think the references are sufficient. I expanded the article a bit so that it now matches the Estonian one. People who can't read Estonian can often get a general idea of what an Estonian-language reference such as Kolmas mulgi kuju ootab avamist means by using http://translate.google.com The reference is about one of his sculptures, so I think that helps to establish notability. this article is about wooden sculptures and eight scupltors, including Lea Armväärt. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are from local Viljandi County newspaper, first one speaks about opening of local sculpture made by Armväärt and another sculptor, and other one simply mentions Armväärt among 8 sculptors participating in local event. I don't believe that these are sufficient for establishing notability. In article at Postimees, she is only mentioned as one of persons on photo.--Staberinde (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-encyclopedic yet...Modernist (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story

AfDs for this article:

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

Film does not meet notability standards. Appears to be an independent film that has so far only been shown at the Cork Film Festival. No reliable sources for references, other than the film festival's web site. The article includes information that is largely unsourced and likely known only to someone connected to the film. This has all the appearances of being an article that exists mainly to promote a non-notable film. Move to delete without prejudice against reinstating it if the film later gains sufficient notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don’t think that’s fair. The article exists not to promote the film, but to provide information about the film-information that is certainly in demand. This is a homegrown film written, directed, performed, scored, shot, edited, (etc, etc) by four young filmmakers alone. With very very little media coverage, due to the film’s “offensive” nature, it was spread entirely by internet word of mouth, as it were. With this, and this alone, it managed to successfully sell out not one, but two showings- both of which received standing ovations. And all this, plus (rather notably) the guest appearance by Tommy Tiernan, was achieved on a virtually non-existent budget. Personally, I think this well and truly qualifies the film for notability. Certainly more so than many films on Wikipedia, which manage to avoid nominations for deletion despite meeting none of the criteria for inclusion.

In addition, all the provided information is widely available to anyone who saw the film on November 6th, or read the online information about it. There is no information that is “likely known only to someone connected to the film”. -Imagi-King (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being there to see a film is not a reliable source, nor is someone's blog. The only thing close to qualifying as a reliable source is the festival web site, which is not entirely objective since it is in the festival's interest to promote its films. There is no other independent coverage whatsoever. "Homegrown film," as Imagi-King puts it, is another way of saying "not notable by Wikipedia standards." "Very little media coverage" also equates to "not notable." I dispute his assertion that this information is "certainly in demand" - if it were, others would have provided it. I still maintain that Imagi-King is basically promoting the film, whether he thinks it is fair or not. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that seeing the film was a reliable source, I was simply contesting your bizarre statement that the information could only be known to those associated with the film. The blog references are there to verify the respective bloggers' (all well known Cork DJs) promotion of the film. I should inform you that I've provided an additional reference to an article about the film, since you appear to have not bothered with checking to see for new references before making claims of no independent references. If, as you purport, "homegrown film" is indeed another way of saying "not notable by Wikipedia standards", perhaps you might consider recommending Clerks for deletion too. With all due respect, you have much to learn about human nature if you think that others would have provided information about the film upon not finding it here. Not everyone is as dedicated to improving the knowledge scope of their fellow man as you and I. -Imagi-King (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, period. "Clerks" would not have been considered notable at this stage, either; it gained notability later on. A mere celebrity appearance does not qualify as notable. The reference from The Kerryman does help, and it is a reliable source, but I still don't believe it's enough. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks' notability was gained following its unprecedented success, as a low-budget independent film, at a film festival. Plus, you implied that a homegrown film is non-notable, regardless of other factors. I agree, the celebrity appearance(in actuality more than a mere role) does not establish notability, but I certainly think it adds to it. -Imagi-King (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to see Steamin' and Dreamin' last Friday night at the Cork Film Festival. I have no connection to anyone involved in the film, but I would like to voice my opinion in support of it's Wikipedia article staying up. In the lead up to the film's premiere there was much media hype, including interviews on Red FM and Cork Campus Radio with the actors, along with much coverage on Youtube. There were also some newspaper coverage of it. This, along with the speed of ticket sales and the overall reception of the film surely justify it as 'notable.' In actuality it has caused quite a stir in Cork City and is one of the few Irish films in the Cork Film Festival this year to gain such popularity. I also fail to see how this Wikipedia article serves as promotion of the film, as the article has not been advertised anywhere with regards to promoting the film. Aside from this, Imagiking and Realkyhick seem to be trying to undermine each other more than discuss the article. -CaptainAmerica2 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews on a local radio station or two have no bearing on whether it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Right now this appears to be nothing more than an independent film that has a highly localized following. That does not make it notable enough for the global audience of Wikipedia. If it moves on to other notable film festivals or general release, it may be notable later on. But it isn't now, and Wikipedia is not the place to try to build a following. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing nobody's trying to build a following here then, isn't it? -Imagi-King (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it appears that you are doing just that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've repeatedly stated, I'm simply trying to provide in-demand information. As WP:SOAP states, an article is considered as a vehicle for advertisement when it is without third-party verification. As this article has the aforementioned verification, I really would appreciate it if you stopped accusing me of subjectivity. -Imagi-King (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely no proof that this information is, as you call it, "in-demand." There is no simply way to verify such a claim. Who is demanding such information? Are people knocking down the firewalls of Wikipedia saying, "We must have more information about this film!"? I highly doubt it. Moreover, this is a phrase that is often use by those trying to defend keeping an article about a non-notable subject, particularly one that can be described as "up and coming." This film mat have attracted some attention within a small geographical area around Cork, but that is not enough to be notable by Wikipedia standards. And much of the material you have added, such as the soundtrack, is not something that is independently verifiable, and likely known at this point only to someone with a connection to the film. I tried to find the soundtrack that you added on any reference that you provided. It isn't there. That only serves to reinforce my belief that you have some connection to this film and are trying to promote it.(You have yet to address what connection you have to the film.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to address what connection I have to the film because, as I have repeatedly stated, and you have repeatedly ignored, I have none. I'm a person who, having heard of the film, looked it up to find information. It wasn't there, so I added it myself. I know that information on it is in demand because I've spoken to many people, in person and online (via forums) that wish to know more about it. And yes, I'll acknowledge that a forum is probably not a suitable reference for Wikipedia, hence the lack of the addition of such evidence. But as you said yourself, there is no simple way to verify such a claim. One must examine the online hype through one's own research (much as anyone conducting research into anything would, with any ounce of sense, refer to more than just Wikipedia and its quoted references), since the fruits of such labours are considered unsuitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia- not something I'm disagreeing with. What I do disagree with, however, is your sarcastic comments. It really would be nice to keep this discussion on a coherently non-petulant level, if that's alright with you.
I know the soundtrack because I purchased a copy (you should also note that all but two of the listed tracks are available online through YouTube and MySpace). May I once more reiterate that I am not trying to advertise the film. I've written an article that cannot justifiably be considered subjective. -Imagi-King (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll take you at your word. But I still remain firm in my stance that this film does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, even if this article were the most objective one in the world. I have an old saying: "The best-written article in the world does not make a non-notable subject notable." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's about all either of us can say then. Neither of us have been convinced by the other's opinion. -Imagi-King (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted because it has only been shown at the Cork Film Festival. This Film Festival is recognized on an national level. To be entered it had to go through a formal screening process and a formal review. Based on this Film Critics decided it should be included as a light comedy. The film is being produced for release on DVD and numerous concerts (2 to date) have been sold out in 2 different venues. Is this not reason enough for this to be cited. The fact that youtube has these videos up and they are gaining a lot of attention adds more weight to this argument. This page is well constructed and is not offensive to anybody. A lot of effort has been put into this production and it would be a shame to see it removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.64.42.94 (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above shows how the film satisfies this policy for determining the notability of films for inclusion in Wikipedia. "Recognition on a national level" is dubious at best. Being sold out at two local venues isn't even close to being enough. Being released on DVD means little - lots of non-notable films are on DVD. Anyone can post videos on YouTube (I do so twice a week). A "well-constructed" page that is "not offensive to anybody" is absolutely irrelevant. Putting "a lot of effort" into this does nothing to establish notability - kids put a lot of effort into a fifth-grade play, but that isn't notable, either. Please take the time to learn what makes something notable for Wikipedia purposes before posting comments like this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of non-notable films are also on Wikipedia, considering the criteria you've suggested. Why aren't you nominating them for deletion? -Imagi-King (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I find them, I do. And as you find them, you are encouraged to do the same. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as a considerable amount of independent publications, all of which have reviewed the film positively, comparing it to classics of the genre, the film is now recognised by the IMDb. I for one think it's high time the deletion nomination was removed. -Imagi-King (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you do. But the Wikipedia standards for notability of films specifically states that inclusion in IMDb is not sufficient proof of notability. It is now quite clear that you have not read these standards, and apparently intend to simply ignore them. I have absolutely no intention of removing this nomination for deletion. I think it's high time you took a close look at what constitutes a notable film at Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NF also states that "A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, including links to reviews, articles, and media references." While I'm well aware that it does not of itself establish notability, it can go a long way, in addition to other references to demonstrate notability, given the Database's own policies of inclusion of notable films. Your pre-emptive and rude assumptions are doing little to lend weight to your side of the argument. -Imagi-King (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you statement to the effect of, "Hey! It's in IMDb now, so we can just end this silly deletion thing right now, OK?" contradicts your statement above. Your understanding of what makes a film notable by Wikipedia standards is either lacking or selective. 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. I said that the film has been positively reviewed and compared to classics of the genre and that the IMDb listing in addition to the aforementioned added credibility to the cause for its inclusion in this encyclopedia. -Imagi-King (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can determine, this film does not meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). It has not been widely distributed, it has not been reviewed by nationally recognized critics, it has not demonstrated historical significance through coverage more than five years after its release, it has not received any major awards, it has not been selected for preservation by any national archive, and it is not taught in any notable film schools. Therefore, Wikipedia does not need an article about it now, though it may become notable at some time in the future, at which point Wikipedia will need an article about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Notability (films). It appears that this film has been shown only at one film festival so far, in the local area where the film was made. I believe this film will need to go on general release before it could qualify as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Projects .NET

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

Contested proposed deletion; this article has been speedily deleted once before as obvious advertising. Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. The article's only claim to historical or technical importance of the sort that would make this software package a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article is a claim to have been a "finalist" for consideration to a minor industry award that confers no notability in the wider world. All other offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker, the award it didn't win, and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed for more than two weeks, nobody has made any claim in its defense and it was relisted? Why? Get rid of this spam junk. What does it take to realize PR companies are on to the game of how to get on Wikipedia? Make an account, make a couple useless edits. Write the article you want. Fake the references. Never use that account again. Wikipedia can't compete against the promotional budget of a corporation by playing nice. Get rid of crap promotional articles about products. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy: I'm not sure notability is asserted and the text reads like an unsourced story. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see significant coverage in independent reliable sources in three external links. That's an easy keep to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was temporarily closed by Cirt but Cirt then relisted following this deletion review. Please note the claimed sources in that discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are mostly WP:SPAM, fail WP:RS, consisting of blogs and press releases and other spammy things pushed out by the company, and the page seems mostly to be Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis/Ihcoyc, whose remarks certainly stand up to close examination. This software was, indeed, one of the 98 finalists for a minor award in 2007, but it has not received anything I would call significant coverage in sources that I consider reliable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment severly toned down the promotional writing style of the article. The opinion I have earlier given to keep the article stands. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The software has been featured in industry publications such as PM Network published by the PMI, twice in 2 separate issues May 2009 and August 2009 respectively. These types of publications are not freely available on the web to the general public, as they are distributed to subscribers and members of the PMI. Googling "Easy Projects .NET PM Network" will produce proof of coverage. This product has also been featured in other print publications including Inc as well as project management related books and whitepapers by industry consultant David Coleman (42 Rules for Successful Collaboration). Because the software does target professionals in the project management field, the coverage by industry experts and publications is thus significant. In the list of Project Management Software articles, there are much more promotional articles than this one. Original article also highlighted the significance of this software in the development of an open source data access framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbammy (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User Special:Contributions/Xbammy - makes no edits for three years, and shows up on this spamcruftisement. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have never spammed, and have in the past approached a fellow Wikipedia admin in order to obtain feedback on the article and improve it. The argument that I have not recently made edits does not take away from the fact that the software in question has received notable industry coverage. Xbammy (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your odd edit contributions history leads one to the possibility that you are a WP:SPA here on Wikipedia in this case on behalf of promotion of a company. And no, the software in question has not received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I concur that your account seems to be mainly used for discussions and edits around this software, which is suspect, Xbammy. Though you have disputed the reliablity of the sources mentioned, Crit, with which I don't agree, I don't see any reason to say the sources in External Links are not secondary or independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the BNET review appears solid (if short), the nomination for the award looks minor but vaguely helpful, and the girl-blog-liuthing has now shown up enough times in different places that I'm leaning toward treating her as a mildly reliable source. The press release [38] from the folks giving the award would actually count as independent coverage even though it is a press release. It's close, but I think its a keeper. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- Samir 07:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comedi

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

An open software project of unknown notability. - Altenmann >t 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This software interface is covered in a 2004 article in the Linux Journal, which is apparently a technology magazine within the community of Linux proponents. In any case, I believe the article (here) counts as significant coverage in a secondary source, and that this software interface is thus notable enough for inclusion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only that source in 2004 and nothing more in five years is not significant coverage. Anna Lincoln 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

average just another open-sores project. it can get profiled in a dozen magazines, nothing says why this is an exceptional, and therefore encyclopedic topic. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The effort required to create a piece of software can be significantly less than writing a novel; we should be routinely treatings software with the suspicion we give to self-published books. Here, the software (a) makes no claim of notability capable of demonstrating it as being other than run of the mill, and (b) provides insufficient evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Huang Xianfan. NW (Talk) 03:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bagui School

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

Only one source has the topic of the article as the subject (that is about what I can find on Google and Baidu), however the article use various links to the same source (Chinese website, English translation, search engine results) to make it looks like different sources. Other references are for individual persons and books mentioned in the article's content that do not cover the subject.

The articlr's vote for deletion on the Chinese wikipedia is here[39]--Skyfiler (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please use {{afd2}} when creating an AfD page. Thanks, cab (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Huang Xianfan at worst. I have no ability to assess the Chinese sources so I am unable to argue either way on whether it possesses sufficient notability for its own page. However, it certainly appears significant in the context of the founder. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful! Skyfiler has destroyed the pages on 'Bagui School' on purpose. Offensive123 (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have no real experience with articles on __ school of research on a subject, though such terms are widely used in the history and sociology of science. Usually we include them under the name of a particularly notable or characteristic theory, or topic of study--is there any way of doing it here?ּ ּּּ DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the articles about Huang Xianfan are of dubious notability. His major work (according to those articles) General History of the Zhuang was not collected even by the National Library of China (there was one result, but that one was edited by 张声震 not Huang). Most sources of those articles are from forums, baidu, and books writen by Huang himself. The 中国网 article which used by the article General History of the Zhuang was copied from Huang's book A Critical Biography of Wei Ba Qun(ISBN 9787563376568). 《壮族百科辞典》,this link and this did not mention the "Bagui School". The only source mentioned "Bagui School" was the article writen by Chen Jisheng, but I strongly doubt its facticity.--Ice Sea (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that the only source mentioned Bagui School is an article by Chen Jisheng. The realible sources were not enough. And this article has been deleted several times in Chinese Wikipedia.--Ice Sea (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Huang Xianfan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Huang Xianfan per nom and Starblind. GlassCobra 21:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salad Days (manga)

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Author is unnotable per WP:BIO so there is no redirect target. Series does not even have an article at the Japan Wikipedia. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources found, just a single mention in passing in announcement about another of his works[40][41]. Prod removed by User:Dream Focus with note of "deproded. Spend years in a magazine read by millions, so its common sense notable" however, did not produce even a single reliable source to even validate the supposed run of the series (ANN Encyc is not RS) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe a statement needs to be validated, then you tag and discuss it. Does anyone doubt the claim that it was in the magazine it is listed as being in, for that time period? If so, you could most likely just search the official website for it by its Japanese name, and find mention of it there. Dream Focus 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[42] See how easy that is? The official website of the magazine, list its volumes there. Anyway, Keep, of course, since the magazine has a high circulation, it was in it, and it lasted a significant period of time which would not happen if the publishers of the magazine didn't think it was notable(and they certainly are better judges of something's notability than any of us). Dream Focus 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources and is therefore not notable. A work's existence alone does NOT make it notable, nor does your continued presumption that it must have had a large number of readers or that the publishers thought it was "notable" by Wikipedia standards. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean notable by "Wikipedia standards" - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant exactly what I wrote, thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, you're welcome. Remember, proper use of quotation marks is one of the cornerstones of good communication on the world wide web.:) - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the major Sunday titles of its era. The ANN entry links to an article about a book that should easily source that. Doceirias (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is your above statement based on your real life professional "expertise"? --KrebMarkt 11:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you insinuating? The article references the assertion made. Talk about using quotation marks to make a question look like an insult... Doceirias (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologize if you read more in my query than what it is. My English really sucks. Back on the subject, i need clarification on the motive of your vote. If from your pro point of view this manga matter then it should be given according weight. --KrebMarkt 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting expertise in quotes implies that you don't believe I have expertise, or that my knowledge of the subject means what I've said is original research. Since I'm a translator and not a manga historian my professional point of view is not really relevant; certainly, I know enough about the history of manga to recognize the title as a major one, but I'm hardly the only person who knows the subject well here. The article I provided I link to and the book the article is about both provide ample evidence that the series is notable. Doceirias (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you are not Patrick Nielsen Hayden rescuing James D. Nicoll from deletion but your insight is good enough for me. --KrebMarkt 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun link: Scare quotes#Usage. --Gwern (contribs) 17:00 14 November 2009 (GMT)

Delete Insufficient coverage by reliable third-party sources means that it is unable to pass WP:NOTE or WP:BK. If sufficient third-party sources are found, the article can be easily recreated. Remember that Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are based on the amount of coverage a topic has received. But inclusion is not based on popularity, age, size, or relationship to other subjects. —Farix (t | c) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a little shocked to find myself agreeing with Dream Focus, but a manga running in one of the most notable anthologies with a readership of 2 million, and making it to 18 collected volumes, is notable by any remotely reasonable definition. To put this into perspective, a very popular US title like X-Men might sell 70-80 thousand copies... this was read by thirty times that many people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No harm will come to this manga series if its article is deleted from WP and no benefit comes to it by there being an article on it here. WP exists for the benefit of its readers. Notice that because this article lacks secondary sources it is very uninteresting. All a person learns is that the series was published. If there were sources giving some interesting information about, for instance, people's reactions to the series or its effect on other manga then it might be worthwhile having an article. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep An 18 volume series that ran in a major manga magazine suggests that while we might not have many English language　sources there are likely sources to be found in Japan. My own feeling is that long running series in major Japanese magazines likely desreve an exception from the book notability guidelines. This would be worth discussing on the talk page of WP:BK. In any case, I recall that the now defunct online anime magazine EX ran summary's of the manga on occasions. One of them can be seen here[43]. SMimas (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not cite sources. If it did, perhaps I could be swayed to change my mind. JBsupreme (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Once again, I encourage people to look at the link I provide above; this series has a far better source than the vast majority of manga articles will ever have. The book mentioned in that article would not only demonstrate notability, it would allow the creation of an extensive and informative production section, well beyond what most articles are capable of creating. Doceirias (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind and SMimas. Difficulty in accessing non-English-language sources doesn't indicate per se a lack of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Doceirias, Hallaballoo and others. Article needs work, but there's no deadline to that and enforcing one via AfD is bad form. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Starblind puts it best. The volume of readers and length of run are a clear indications of notability. Sourcing may be more difficult due to the language barrier, but that is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 05:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fashionista

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

Two month-old fashion blog. Only claim to notability is an interview in another blog and the fact that Grace Coddington posted a link to the blog on her facebook page. Prezbo (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unacceptable sourcing not meeting WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She fails WP:BIO and her website fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:N, and no claim or evidence of meeting any criterion at WP:WEB. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely unlikely a blog could pass WP:WEB in two months of existance, and nothing in the article suggests this is any kind of exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the easiest article (name-wise) to find sources on, but can't find any. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though the blog is only two months old, it has had great success. The fact that you don't think Grace Coddington and an exclusive interview is enough, is weak. He has also done several exclusive interviews with notable and important people in the fashion and blog industry, which only shows the importance of the blog. And FYI, the article is on the person behind it, not the blog itself. The reason for mentioning the blog, is merely because of his success. Success has to do with the person. Thejournalist80 (talk) 21.32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Grace Coddington could be the Voice of God herself reaching down from heaven to anoint this blog as the new messiah. It doesn't change the fact that WP:N requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent services. One isn't a plural no matter how large you write it. If this blog is genuinely notable, it will eventually attract more coverage, and at that point you can come back and recreate the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable blog. Article, after cleanup (like the removal of 'references' to the blog itself, some namedropping, some unreferenced and unverified claims--including the term "socialite"), lacks content--because the subject lacks notability. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. First of all, the term socialite is a term that has been washed out by time. Second, if you actually read through the references you remove, the blog isn't only made up by one person, The Fashionista, but three, and notable enough Bengt from ILVOELV is the Creative Director. To call him the editor-in-chief of his blog would not be inappropriate. Thejournalist80 (talk) 21.32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one !vote per participant. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- So you're saying there's collusion between the two blogs? That would discredit the one reference in the article, since it's not independent. And I don't know what you mean with "washed out"--but I won't accept "washed out" as a license that anything goes, because in that case I want to be referred to as a rock and roll god. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Im saying ILVOELV works for two blogs individually.Thejournalist80 (talk) 22.36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete No indication of notability for me. Come back if it achieves notability - by Wikipedia's standards. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read through the 'interview'. First, who is the interviewer and why is he/she/it notable? Second, if that interview confers notability, then I too am a rock god. Peridon (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you're up to date on your fashion blogs, but ILVOELV is one of the biggest out there. For him to do an interview, means a lot to the readers.Thejournalist80 (talk) 23.11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to assume good faith, and so should you: I am going to assume that Peridon knows their fashion blogs better than, say, the pope. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion occasionally catches up with Peridon. Just assume I'm asking the question in the same way as the judge who asked 'And who are The Rolling Stones?'. He knew quite well, but wanted the information entered in the record. Peridon (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I'm just bringing the facts to the table. ILVOELV is one of the big ones.Thejournalist80 (talk) 13.33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zafira (person)

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

The person does not fulfill WP:PORNBIO. I had noticed it in July, asked author for his opinion and proposed the page for deletion (actually, the intention was to change it to redirect). The article was changed to redirect. This has been recently reverted, but unfortunately without adding any new sources or reasons, so I believe the original argument of non-notability still applies. Tchoř (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unacceptable sourcing. Do not redirect to the unrelated Opel Zafira. Andrea105 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (1) Insufficient significant coverage in reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:N. (2) No claim of notability (particularly against criterion at WP:PORNBIO) capable of demonstrating her as other than run of the mill. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Costa

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

Notability concerns - lacks the importance or significance of the subject. Fails any criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Cybergirls of the weeks are not equivalent to Playboy playmates. --Smilemeans (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I usually don't comment on these skin girl AfDs, but it says she was a playmate for the mexican edition of playboy. If there isn't a rule/essay already on whether that's sufficient, there should be, as that seems the primary claim of interest.--Milowent (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Playboy Mexico, Playmate for Nov 2009" was added recently into article, but doesn't have its source. --Smilemeans (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure if she indeed has that title, someone will tell us. Is that sufficient for notability? Just wondering, as I see these lesser-playboy AfDs a lot and wondered what the "rules" are.--Milowent (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep if we can get a picture put in the article somehow WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Mexican Playmate claim is unsupported with any source and isn't mentioned on her own MySpace page as far as I could find. And that seems to be the strongest claim to notability in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Lukashin

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

Swedish Muay Thai competitor, 2 matches, played Boules as a high level as a child, no news coverage, some YouTube videos. I don't think he is notable based on the above. I speedied the article to start under A7 but it was contested so I am bringing it here -- Samir 00:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NOT A JOKE! This is not a joke, a hoax or anything like that. This is a serious Muay Thai Fighter who lives in Sweden, and deserves an Wikipedia page. I have know put in some references so you all can see that this is not a joke. It is sources to both the muay thai-fights and the former boule carrier. And i am sorry about the Arnold Photos, that will never happen again. Hope this article can remain on Wikipedia, beacuse it is NOT a hoax. Kind Regards Anders. Pavellukashin (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IS THIS A JOKE? I swear I just removed a photograph of none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger from the subject's infobox. JBsupreme (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presumably a real person, but I see no reliable sources and the article reads like a mixture of promotional puffery and general silliness: "To look like Andy Souwer he some times trains in his long underwear.". Indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I'm calling bovine excrement on this one. Tagged as hoax. DarkAudit (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax or unsourced nn. Andrea105 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a steaming pile of ... not accurate information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mega Delete. Hoax, but doubt it will get speedied. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Delete One of his matches, if you go by the link...he beat a long retired Swedish tennis champion. I think that would close the books on this being anywhere near real. Completely ridiculous hoax. Nate • (chatter) 03:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is a hoax through and through. WP:IAR if we have to. JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G3 per the long underwear as noted above. ;) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With just 2 professional fights, even on the slim chance this is real, I doubt there's enough here to pass WP:ATHLETE. Certainly far too few sources to be acceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW, anyone? JBsupreme (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS NOT A JOKE! This is not a joke, a hoax or anything like that. This is a serious, Professional Muay Thai Fighter who lives in Sweden, and deserves an Wikipedia page. I have know put in some references so you all can see that this is not a joke. It is sources to both the muay thai-fights and the former boule carrier. Hope this article can remain on Wikipedia, beacuse it is NOT a hoax. Kind Regards Anders. Pavellukashin (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.55.148 (talk) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhirid ab Owain Gwynedd

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

Delete. This is another bastard with no apparent notability to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find sources testifying to either the notability or existence of this person. (Zero GScholar hits is surprising.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are now sources testifying to his existence, though none mention him extensively. I would say merge to the article on Owain Gwynedd or Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd (which currently doesn't mention him).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the article's original raison d'être - the association with the Madoc legend - no longer appears in the rewritten version. I seem to recall that Rhirid was indeed associated with some version of the Madoc legend, but I don't remember which. Gwyn Williams' Madoc: the Making of a Myth would probably have it; unfortunately I no longer have access to this book to check myself. If this is true, then Rhirid would be (marginally) notable for two things, which may be a reason to preserve an independent article, though it could never be more than a few sentences long.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Cúchullain ^t/c 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally created the wiki and I admit as a stand alone it is rather weak and pointless. Without spending a lot of time looking it up right now, this Rhirid is, according to legend, the brother Madoc returned to collect and take back to new lands in America, or more likely; Ireland. This Rhirid apparently had an estate near Dublin which his descendants held until the 17th Century. But is this enough to justify a page for Prince Rhirid? I think objectively, probably not. If we decide it is worth retention then referencing can be improved, but is that the question? I'm happy for it to be deleted, because he did not do anything particularly noteworthy, and allow poor Rhirid to slowly fade into complete obscurity....James Frankcom (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to greenhouse. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar_greenhouse

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Solar greenhouse

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

The article seemed to be a spin off about the difference between greenhouse warming and how greenhouses work. It does not seem to deal with the actual subject of solar greenhouses as seen on web pages. The actual subject of solar greenhouses sould be a section in the article about greenhouses. Some of the references at the end might be usefully copied to the greenhouse article. I think the bit in the article about the greenhouse effect says quite enough about the difference between how a greenhouse works and the greenhouse effect Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename to Thermodynamics of greenhouses to more accurately reflect the subject matter of the article (which, per the references provided, is notable in its own right). Andrea105 (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Some references must be inserted.Rirunmot 01:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Merge to greenhouse, where a good explanation of how greenhouses work is conspicuously lacking. Turn two weak articles into one strong article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to greenhouse. Plausible search term. No need for AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to greenhouse. Seems it was started (by me) as an attempt to defuse an edit war way back when (3-05). It didn't work for that purpose and should've been merged a long time ago. Shouldn't be a controversial merge - agree w/ Atmos, no need for an afd. Vsmith (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with nom. No compelling reason why this should be a separate article. As Boris says, it will make the greenhouse article better as well.
—Apis (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete and merge anything of value into Greenhouse per nom. This article is a sad fragment from an antique war and serves no useful purpose. But notice that the greenhouse article has, as is traditional, the wrong explanation for how greenhouses work William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with various outcomes--merge, rename, or refocus and rewrite. If it's renamed, I think heat transfer would be better than thermodynamics (a scan of the leads of those two articles shows that the former matches the subject matter better). The article right now suffers from a lack of definition of the topic--it seems some editors think it's about heat transfer in greenhouses, while others think it about greenhouses more generally. It could also be about the various considerations involved in weaning a greenhouse off of other energy inputs.

I agree with the nomination that the paragraph in greenhouse effect is a sufficient discussion to outline the distinction between at atmospheric phenomenon and the heating effects in greenhouses. What is needed, but seems hard to effect, is a reasonable discussion of heat transfer in greenhouses. For some reason this subject seems to attract edit warring and uncivilized talk page discussions full of name calling. The topic of heat transfer through glazing is also addressed other places, such as insulated glazing. Insulated glazing is not a particular good article, but at least it doesn't seem to attract the kind of warring that greenhouse stuff does. So perhaps we should aim to have a short section in greenhouse effect that largely refers to insulated glazing for more on how heat transfer through glazing works. I guess a problem with that is that insulated glazing is about double-pane and up, whereas it would be useful to discuss single-pane as well. Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse technology since the 1980's has come so far that the infrared question is now pretty much merely the academic question of whether the greenhouse effect is appropriately named (I'm currently on the fence on that one). To the extent that the question is of any interest at all, it is surely more appropriately addressed at the greenhouse effect article. In any event the whole infrared thing is something Fourier came up with in 1824, which real greenhouse designers seem to pay little or no attention to, and which has not been demonstrated to have significant influence on greenhouse temperature (but neither has the opposite). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Greenhouse per nom & others. Ivanvector (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - are any greenhouses not solar? Ivanvector (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the use of "solar" in "solar greenhouse" can be for at least two purposes: 1) To indicate a greenhouse (generally of the conventional sort discussed in greenhouse) that is heated exclusively by solar radiation, without the use of combustion or electric heaters, or that at least tries to minimize their use; or 2) To indicate a room of a building, the main function of which is to act as a solar heat collector to supplement the heating of the rest of the building when the conditions are favorable for that, and which may or may not also be used to grow plants. For an example of this usage, see [[44]]. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Greenhouse" in my experience is the name given to a specific type of plant nursery which is exclusively solar-heated, referring to the environmental benefit of collecting solar energy, the fact that plants grow in them, and the fact that they are often constructed of green-coloured materials. It is quite possible that this usage is local or cultural. I see your point about the second usage, but I personally wouldn't refer to that sort of solar heater or solar collector as a "greenhouse" per se. But I'm getting off-topic. What I meant with my question is that any usage of "greenhouse" mentioned so far (and any that I am aware of) includes the sun as a primary source of heat. Therefore, the inclusion of separate greenhouse and solar greenhouse articles is redundant, unless there is such a thing as a non-solar greenhouse (besides the obvious, houses painted green). I say comment because this wouldn't affect my !vote, given the current state of the article, just a) curious, and b) something to think about. Ivanvector (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't think that "green" in the sense of "environmentally friendly" has anything to do with the origin of the term. It dates from at least the 1600s, and that usage probably only from the 1960s or 1970s. Secondly, I don't think you'll find the constraints of being exclusively solar heated, or only as nursuries in very wide usage. Googling greenhouse heating overwhelmingly results in hits about combustion or electric heaters rather than hits about solar radiation. I agree that this doesn't affect that outcome, but I want to note that it does not seem that your experience with the usage of the term is representative. Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my personal experience certainly does not represent a global perspective, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought it would. I ran your search, and now I see more clearly what you mean. Since this article doesn't seem to cover the plant nursery type of greenhouse in detail, perhaps it should be merged with solar heating, and the links between all of these articles should be re-evaluated. Ivanvector (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look on the web for 'solar greenhouse' and as far as I could see from the first couple of pages the main use was to describe greenhouse with better means to store heat for use during the night. So it can include things like a mass of water to store the heat and better insulating cover yet good at allowing solar radiation in during the day. Nothing that is particularly more a good subject for comparison with the greenhouse effect that a normal greenhouse. Not a very large subject in of itself yet but worth writing something about.

I've also had a look for 'thermodynamics of greenhouses' and it seems to be mainly some debate about the greenhouse effect with a bit stuck in to confuse the whole matter about how greenhouses work. There isn't very much in that debate that would be of real interest to a person with an interest in the design and construction of greenhouses, and I doubt if many of the people in that debate are interested in actual greenhouses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs) 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my understanding is that greenhouse typically refers to a building for plant cultivation, since virtually all plants need light you let the sunshine in, and any sunshine will cause warming which can be both beneficial and problematic. It is true that solar sometimes refer to solar heating, unfortunately, as nom says, the article doesn't deal with that either, but rather reflects an archaic edit war. There doesn't appear to be a reason why subjects such as insulation, 'thermal buffers', benefits and problems with solar heat gain, and so on, can't be mentioned in the greenhouse article itself.
—Apis (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to greenhouse. As Apis just said, "plants need light," specifically red and blue (they can do without green, in fact they even reject it, whence the color of foliage; conceivably this is a strategy for keeping cool given that the green part of the solar spectrum contains more energy than the red and blue parts). Also bring the greenhouse article up to date, see e.g. [45], whose range of greenhouse technologies dwarfs Wikipedia's basic account. There are also some comprehensive articles on greenhouses published by the International Society for Horticultural Science, unfortunately they're not free. Regarding whether infrared plays a significant role, this is an excellent question which Wood's 1909 experiment unfortunately doesn't answer (a) because he didn't take it seriously enough to make it a believable experiment and (b) because he offered no explanation for how the very high intensity of blocked infrared escapes from the greenhouse. Regarding the synonyms "hothouse" (as in "hothouse tomatoes") and "glasshouse", the Concise OED lists the dates of introduction as 1664 for "greenhouse," 1749 for "hothouse," and 1838 for "glasshouse." (In 1385 "glasshouse" meant a place where glass was blown, while in 1511 "hothouse" meant what we now call a spa, and by association---think "massage parlour"---a brothel, also in 1511.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to greenhouse; this is the standard meaning of the term, so making it more specific ("solar greenhouse") and a separate article is not very useful. Awickert (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. noone hasd clearly rebutted the argument that this is synth and OR and the vast majority of the keep votes are by assertion Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mishk'vei ishah

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah

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

(Nomination) Delete and move whatever is salvageable into LGBT topics and Judaism. This article appears to be a hodge-podge collection of various sources--many primary and of doubtful reliability--and seems to be more of an essay than an article. Anything worth saving should be moved to LGBT topics and Judaism and this OR/Essay should be deleted. Avi (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its just a merge of the material that was in Leviticus 18#Sexuality and The Bible and homosexuality#Leviticus 18 and 20, so that its all in one place, instead of spread over multiple articles (rather than merely being summarised there). Newman Luke (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Newman Luke (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both those articles seem to have their own issues. The Bible and homosexuality is a mess and has been tagged for numerous issues while Leviticus 18 is tagged for merger into the Leviticus article. So citing that this material simply comes from those articles simply means they inherit the problems from them, that they are a mess and possibly worse and may be better to merge into the main articles. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. The title is an obstruse Hebrew term and in itself not notable. 2. This is just an article about homosexualism and the bible. 3. More precisely, an essay. Surely we have better places to discuss this. Precisely as the nominator suggested. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its about the specific thing mentioned in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Not any other instances of homosexuality, nor homosexual acts. The alternative title would be the clunky The thing described in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Since the equivalent term mishkav zachar is used in english-language discussions of halakha (in Judaism), mishkvei ishah seems the best title to put it under (mishkav zachar - bedding a man - being just one interpretation among many of what mishkvei ishah means). And I have to say that the use of the term homosexualism does rather give away a bias. Newman Luke (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned a few reasons. You have addressed one, and even that not to my satisfaction.

My use of words may be indicative more of my level of English as a foreign language, than of any prejudice. Please keep Wikipedia:Assume good faith in mind. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually TEFL people telling you to use homosexualism rather than homosexuality? They should be struck off. Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Avi (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It does not matter at all where the material comes from, it is neither helped nor hurt by being taken from the two articles mentioned. The article has value because it is an exegesis of an important Biblical term. It is extensively sourced from secondary sources, and its use of primary sources seems to be in large part a linking back to Biblical texts in largely uncontroversial and non-POV manner. If there is a problem with any particular citation it should be addressed individually. While there are issues here and there (mostly already tagged), that is run of the mill for any Wikipedia article. Most importantly, I found the article informative, useful and balanced. I have done quite a bit of work in the field of history of homosexuality and there was a lot of material here that I had not previously come across. One caveat, I also have problems with the title, but that may be partly resolved by including a list of important translations, from KJ onwards. Haiduc (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - previously merged content into a much stronger, well-referenced artcile. Notable because it is the subject of much controversy. Wikipedia is not just a place for nice things, but for controversial topics that may upset some. For our core readers - students - this is a useful article. WP:AfD is not the place to discuss moves or mergers. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and restore content to the original articles) per nominator. This is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. This article resulted from a ghastly "merging" of content from two fairly acceptable and conventional articles Leviticus 18 and The Bible and homosexuality#Leviticus 18 and 20 that did NOT dwell on a particularly Judaic point of view, but of a more general one. Then all of a sudden from within those more or less conventional-sounding and seeming articles, there was then born this misbegotten "Mishk'vei ishah" mumbo-jumbo as a Hebraicly-named and "sounding" aberration that has absolutely no real connection to any clearly defined classical Judaic, Hebraic legacy or Christian intrepretation. It is one thing to describe and explain what a term has meant in Hebrew over the ages, it quiet another to abscond with a term and then use it as a tool to reflect modern day attitudes, debates and struggles over the meaning and scope of homosexuality, defending the move in WP:LAWYER style. Therefore, this article fails in its own goals, and its creator has not done it any favors by disembowling it from its original contexts of either the entire Biblical chapters, actually two verses: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, from which it stems or within the context of an entire article about the The Bible and homosexuality, but not to grab a sliver of a phrase out of context hackneyed to death with incomprehensible gobbledygook that is neither Christian nor Jewish, that verges quite seriously in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. IZAK (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does not read like an encyclopedia entry. If there is valid content here (and there may well be), I would recommend moving it into existing topics on Homosexuality and the Bible, etc. The title of the article is too esoteric, and it is unlikely that anyone would search for a topic under that name. —Dfass (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dfass. -- Nahum (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is no more esoteric than shatnez, tzaraath, or tallit, all of which discuss specific bible verses, and the meaning/consequences of them. I'd also like to point out that there's not really another reasonable alternative - there are disputes over whether it refers to homosexuals or to homosexual acts, so you can't even call it male-male sex act(s) forbidden by Leviticus, which is pretty clunky as it is. Furthermore, the use of 'etc.' in Dfass's comment is a good example of why it needs to be a distinct article - its discussed in too many places for it to be comprehensive anywhere other than in its own article; otherwise the coverage would always vary in depth and coverage of points of view, depending on which articles its in. There wouldn't be anything linking the coverage together, but there is when there's a proper article about it. Newman Luke (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is more esoteric. shatnez is a concept only existing within the framework of halakha. tzaraath as commonly understood by Torah-Jewry is unrelated to leprosy and desreves its own article. tallit is the name of a traditional Jewish garb, and deserves going by its Hebrew name. None of these arguments apply here, since the issue is part of a broader one of The Bible and homosexuality and no one calls it "Mishk'vei ishah" except as a euphemism in said Biblical context. I suggest you do a simple google search for shatnez, tzaraath & tallit vs. Mishk'vei ishah, discarding instances of direct quotes from the Biblical verses. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Biblical Commentary.-- Nahum (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people call it mishk'vei ishah. Unfortunately its one of those terms that, due to orthography issues, have multiple spelling variations, making it harder to search. Furthermore, as mentioned in the article, Judaism often refers to it as Mishkav Zachar. However, this latter term means "bedding a male", which is a specific point of view - that it means all male-male sex, and not just a specific sex act(s); the article cannot take that title, because it violates WP:NPOV. Equally, it cannot be anal sex in the bible, because that's also one point of view, and not therefore neutral. The only option is to say what it says, without interpreting it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke (talk • contribs)

As for there being "no alternative," it fits perfectly into "The Bible and homosexuality" and does not require its own article. Unless you think Wikipedia needs a new article titled homosexuality and halakha, in which case you'd need to rewrite Mishk'vei ishah to fit that description. As it is, however, the article cannot stand. -- Nahum (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fit perfectly into "The Bible and homosexuality". Firstly see Wikipedia:Article size. This is also of sufficient size for it to be in its own article. Secondly, there are multiple articles that also discuss it - Forbidden relationships in Judaism, LGBT issues and Judaism, Leviticus 18. The only way to avoid a content forking problem is to discuss it in one place. Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a detailed article on an important small facet of The Bible and homosexuality. --Alynna (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there will be references in detail to this as for all topics of Jewish law. In fact, there's a good start in the article as it stands. . I completely fail to grasp the view that articles on Jewish law should not be written from a Jewish point of view, including other points of view on them of course, but that every topic treated there must be discussed only as a minor aspect of the broadest overall topic that corresponds, as if specifically Jewish (or other ) religious subjects were not worth detailed treatment in a comprehensive encyclopedia that is not limited by PAPER. We generally do write specialized articles about specific subjects when we can--we could for example collect everything about New York City into one article, or about the Bible. (Encyclopedias have been made that way, especially some French ones.) That we do otherwise is related the the medium we use, which is more amenable to fairly short presentations--but right or wrong, TOO DETAILED is not a deletion reason. I frankly consider this a sort of squeamishness about sexual issues, particularly sexual issues where some Jewish interpretations whether now or in the past that are opposed to the 21st century secular consensus. Previous arguments on related articles have used the concept that we should not discuss them because some anti-Semites might use them to attack the Jews--this of course is a total violation of NOT CENSORED -- and of common sense, because anti-Semites have historically used anything at all about Judaism, true or imaginary, to attack the Jews. Any problems about POV should be dealt with by adding material. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG: You seem to be protesting too much. No one opposes any kind of articles from any point of view as long as it's truly valid, but when a 3,300 year old classical HEBREW phrase, taken out of context from not just its verse: Leviticus 18:22 וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא. Transliterated: "ve'et zachar lo tishkav mishkevei ishah to'eivah hi" full verse says: "and do not lie with a male like with a woman, it is an abomination/perversion" and Leviticus 20:13 וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה--תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם; מוֹת יוּמָתוּ, דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם. Transliteration: "veish asher yishkav et zachar mishkevei ishah to'eivah asu, shneihem mot yumatu demeihem bam" full verse says: "and a man that will lie with a male the way of lying with a woman an abomination/perversion have they done, they shall be put to death, their blood/guilt is upon them", so here one can clearly see that to take "mishkevei ishah" out of the full and proper context of its OWN full verse, chapter, book, and original religion is irresponsible and violates WP:NOR (even if outside scholars have made the same error multiple times) as well as violating the rules of logic and scholarship, (and no sane person denies that the Hebrew Bible is first and foremost the book of the Jewish people who had it for close to 2000 years before the New Testament was written) so that when the opinions of latter-day writers are IMPOSED on that fraction of words from a highly compex Judaic text you have a huge problem on your hands. Nobody cares what anti-Semites will think, and nobody is denying anyone's freedom of expression, but what is being asked for is that clarity and accuracy be maintained. This little extract creates more confusion than anything else. It makes it seem that Judaism itself didn't know what is was talking about or what it held. Hocus pocus is not the core of an encyclopedia, and that is just what this article is, hocus pocus it is pseudo-scholarship in the guise of something else. To the uninformed it may seem clever, but to the better informed it is just sheer nonsense in violation of WP:NONSENSE, just a pathetic word salad. Nonsense is also "something" but it isn't the criteria for Wikipedia articles. IZAK (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - IZAK you must know that's a really biased translation. Mishkvei and Tishkav have exactly the same triconsonantal root - Sh-K-V. ...tishkav mishkvei... can only be translated accurately as something like ...bed beddings... or ...lay layings...; any translation that uses completely different words for the two terms is utterly dishonest. There's absolutely no way it can be directly rendered with words inserted between them, and absolutely no way to claim that it directly says way of laying rather than just lyings. And its also abundently clear in the text that mishkvei is genitive - that it means of-a-woman not with a woman. Hence that it literally says ...with a male lay layings of a woman... and not ...lie with a male like with a woman.
    - Newman, as you well know, translation is an art and not a perfect science. Even the Greeks who tried to translate the Torah into the Septuagint about 2200 years ago didn't get it right. Wikipedia is not a language lab to experiment with all sorts of word forms. Wikipedia CAN say, this is the Orthodox viuew, the Reform view, the Conservative view, the Christian view, but it CANNOT make up its own views as you are trying to do, camouflaging it vociferously under the cloak of twenty modern-day essays from jonny-come-lately academics spouting their pro-gay agenda. They don't care about the Bible, they only care about legitimizing gay sex. That is a social trend. While Orthodoxy cannot abide by that, Reform and Conservative do. So be it. Wikipedia can only report that by describing and explaining, but what you are doing is taking it many steps further by trying to make Wikipedia into the "matrix" of a pro-gay "Jewishly seeming ideology" which is wrong and will fail. If you succeed, which is unlikely, Wikipedia's articles about Judaism will become the laughing stock of the world. It is nearly impossible to translate everything pedantically especially if it leads you to the opposite conclusion of what the verse/s intend in the first place. While you are obviously intent on implying that the Torah did not know what it was saying and that you therefore feel it must be driving at legitimating some forms of homosexual behaviors between men, on the other hand, it is very obvious that the Torah is not doing what you say it's doing with all your word-play. There is no such thing in English as "layings of a woman" and in addition you have totally overlooked the fact the principle of dibra Torah belashon nekiah that the Torah speaks in "clean language" meaning this that it does not use explicit X-rated words even when it's very clearly describing and forbidding an X-rated act, i.e. in this case all homosexual sex between males. All your backward flips cannot save you from the rational, logical clear-cut meaning of these two verses, and not make it into a disembodied phrase taken out of context. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - As for "into the matrix...", you must realise that Reform and Conservative Judaism together with Liberal Judaism constitute the majority of Judaism - there are more people in these denominations than in Orthodox. If they all "legitimiz[e] gay sex", then that's the majority Jewish view, regardless of what Orthodox Judaism thinks. As it happens Orthodox Judaism also officially views the prohibition as one against anal sex, rather than all homosexuality in general, but that's beside the point. You cannot legitimately describe the official point of view of the majority of Jews as "Jewishly seeming ideology...which is wrong". As for "jonny-come-lately academics spouting their pro-gay agenda", thats a massively biased prejudiced attitude to take, and really you should be ashamed for expressing it. See WP:Civility and WP:NPOV. They are reliable sources, and your prejudice against them cannot be allowed, according to wikipedia's sourcing policy, to exclude them. Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Newman says, IZAK responds: (1) "you must realise that Reform and Conservative Judaism together with Liberal Judaism constitute the majority of Judaism - there are more people in these denominations than in Orthodox. If they all "legitimiz[e] gay sex", then that's the majority Jewish view, regardless of what Orthodox Judaism thinks." -- This is truly an appalling statement. So now Orthodox Judaism has no say? The mother religion subjected to matricide in cold blood in full public view. Have you forgotten that the Torah/Judaism itself FORBIDS following a mistaken majority Exodus 23:2 "Do not follow the majority to do evil..." as well as prohibiting the following of a "meisit umeidiach" (a "meisit umeidiach" – a "meisit" – "an enticer," and a meidiach - “one who pushes away.”) as per Deuteronomy 13:7 that says Deuteronomy 13:9 "Do not agree with him, and do not listen to him..." not to mention the death sentence decreed by the Torah upon a false prophet Deuteronomy 13:2. So what you say is truly ludicrous. In any case you keep on making a serious error by confusing numbers of Jews with the subject of Judaism, the two not being the same phenomena. (2) Newman says: "As it happens Orthodox Judaism also officially views the prohibition as one against anal sex, rather than all homosexuality in general, but that's beside the point." -- Now you claim what Orthodox Judaism does NOT claim anywhere. It is only in the severity of the sin (meaning should the punishment have been death or lashings) but not in the degree of the prohibition. You exhibit an astounding lack of precision and you jump to the worst conclusions. (3) Newman says: "You cannot legitimately describe the official point of view of the majority of Jews as "Jewishly seeming ideology...which is wrong"." -- I don't, but Jewish Law does because any group of Jews, no matter how large that ammends or twists the teachings of the Torah and its commandments is automatically not regarded as speaking for either Jews or Judaism. They are free to speak for themselves but they cannot adopt the mantle of official "Judaism" when they actively work against it as defined by the Written and Oral Torah. This is what happened to the Sadducees, Karaites, Sabbateans, Early Christians and now to much of Reform as they dump every last shred of Judaism and the teachings/precepts of the Torah as well as quite often openly denying the existence of God (Humanistic Judaism is proud of that, so be it, they can have their say, writing NPOV articles about their beliefs is fine, but they cannot claim they somehow represent Judaism in toto.) (4) Newman says: "As for "jonny-come-lately academics spouting their pro-gay agenda", thats a massively biased prejudiced attitude to take, and really you should be ashamed for expressing it." -- Baloney. Wikipedia demands accuracy, truthfulness and a report of the subject from its primary sources. If the Torah condemns homosexuality it is not violating any Wikipedia rules, unless you live in a 1984-style "PC" fantasy-land of your own. (5) Newman says: "See WP:Civility and WP:NPOV. They are reliable sources, and your prejudice against them cannot be allowed, according to wikipedia's sourcing policy, to exclude them." -- Good jokes, the pot calling the kettle black, but still not to the point. You cannot go about hurling invective and insults at Orthodox Judaism/Jews and get away with it by violating WP:LAWYER, WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:WAR. IZAK (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally its abundently clear, even from your own translation, that that refers to specific sex act(s), and not to any sex acts that have no equivalent between a man and woman. Its also abundently clear that it does not actually detail what sex acts lay layings refers to - it doesn't clearly identify whether it includes mutual fellatio, for example. And its also abundently clear that it definitely does not refer to romantic feelings, which aren't even mentioned; there's nothing there condemning a homosexual relationship that involves kissing but not sex.
    - Newman, you are "intellectualizing" homosexual actvities. Kissing and hugging and oral sex are not mentioned in the verse/s, but it does not mean that because the Torah does not specifically refer to it that it's "permissible" or "accepted" or "admirable" or "desirable" behavior according to classical Judaism (not just "Orthodox" Judaism). On the contrary, as Maimonides and many others point out that many additional prohibitions even between men and women, such as hugging and kissing, even talking with others when it's obviously sexually oriented is outright forbidden and a sin according to the Torah, be it by the rabbis going back to the earliest era of the Oral Law or as self-understood from the Torah itself which requires the Jewish People to be an "am kadosh" ("holy nation") and "kedoshim tiheyu" ("be holy/sanctify yourselves") which as Rashi expounds means "distance yourself from immorality" ("arayot") and he does NOT say "hey guys, french kiss anyone you like, hug anyone erotically and do blow jobs all you like," because that is NOT what classical Judaism was ever about and NOT what the Torah intends or gives any dispensations for. While our flesh may be weak and we as humans make plenty of errors, but the Torah does not allow any of it upfront as you say it does, or make acceptable and permissible as you imply and declare so voluminously. None of this is my "original thought" by the way, and you know that. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am very glad you agree that "Kissing and hugging and oral sex are not mentioned in the verse/s" . The obvious conclusion which you still appear to refuse to admit to yourself, is that the bible does not explicitly condemn "kissing and hugging and oral sex" between two men, and therefore it does not literally condemn homosexuality in general, nor all male-male sex. Such claims are mere opinions - notable though they may be - they are not what the bible actually says, just interpretations of it; they cannot be presented as what the bible says but only as what so and so thinks the bible is implying - see WP:ATTRIBUTION.Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Newman says, IZAK responds: (1) "I am very glad you agree that "Kissing and hugging and oral sex are not mentioned in the verse/s" ." -- Yes, so what? The Torah does not describe how Tefillin should be made either or where exactly they should be placed. Nor does the Torah limit the numbers of wives a man may take, so what (it was banned by Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom in the 10th century and mainly for Ashkenazim) etc etc etc? Obviously you have never heard of the Oral Torah which encompasses more prohibtions as expounded by the rabbis "derabbanan" of the Talmudic and pre-Talmudic era, that in effect becomes as acute a prohibtion as that of the Torah's "deoraita", see D'Oraita and D'Rabbanan. Following the rulings of THOSE rabbis is a core part of historic Judaism and following the Torah's precepts, see Deuteronomy 17:10 (not the secular academics you never tire of citing -- they may be mentioned as much as you like, but they are NOT Halachic authorities in any way shape size or form, not my view, a universally held one among all great Talmidei Chachamim). (2) Newman says: "The obvious conclusion which you still appear to refuse to admit to yourself, is that the bible does not explicitly condemn "kissing and hugging and oral sex" between two men, and therefore it does not literally condemn homosexuality in general, nor all male-male sex." -- Now how illogical is that? The Torah never goes into every last detail, it leaves that for the Oral Torah, but you cannot claim that the Torah is now a "how-to-rationalize-Judaism-acceptance manual" for "permitting" gay sexual actvities like oral sex between men, males kissing and hugging or mutual male masturbation, when it's not. You take half the loaf, or in this case, two words, and create a misbegotten result with it. If this is an honest mistake then it's forgivable but if you are so determined to violate WP:NOR with your insistent "exegesis" you violate much more than that, such as WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTANARCHY. (3) Newman says: "Such claims are mere opinions - notable though they may be - they are not what the bible actually says, just interpretations of it; they cannot be presented as what the bible says but only as what so and so thinks the bible is implying - see WP:ATTRIBUTION." -- Rationalize all you want. There is no such animal as creating false conclusions that Jewish Law allows what your opinions, and latter-day opinion-makers say. IZAK (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, with regard to Judaism knowing what it is talking about. Have you actually ever considered that it is your perception of what Judaism is talking about which is flawed? Rashi, the Talmud, Josephus, Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, all officially regard that passage as referring specifically to Anal Sex. Quite why you think that your personal viewpoint (which contradicts the official exegesis of all these groups) is the official view of all Judaism throughout history, except modern groups, is utterly beyond me; not least because you haven't cited a single reliable source in favour of your claims. Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So now what are saying, that Rashi and the Talmud and Orthodox Judaism permit or endorse deviant sexual behaviors in any way shape size or form? You cite articles written by latter-day professors with their own open pro-gay agenda that is not part of classical Judaism (Reform can allow it because they deny all the tenets of classical Judaism) but they have zero credibility when the reality of Judaism is the exact opposite. Would Rashi and the Talmud or any Orthodox rabbis or synagogue today or anytime allow gay male strip shows acording to your reasoning and allowances, after all there is no anal sex involved and it's just a show being watched? I can cite plenty of sources, but tell us if what you say makes even a shred of SENSE first? Before we get to sources let's discuss logic and reason. No classical scholar can accept 95% of the so-called sources you cite in any case (they should be removed and replaced with WP:RS) because they do not accept the notions underlying the Torah and what its purpose is viewed as being for the last 3300 years. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Who exactly defines deviant. If you are trying to claim that all homosexuality is deviant. Go and read WP:NPOV and WP:Civility yet again. Your accusation of pro-gay is utterly without merit; its based on an utterly circular argument - that if they reach a pro-gay conclusion their research is pro-gay. As for Rashi and the Talmud in relation to strip shows, I would think they'd disallow them, but that would be on the basis of tzniut, not for any pro- or anti-gay reasons. I certainly don't think they'd regard strip-shows as prohibited by the rule against mishk'vei ishah; there's absolutely nothing in the Talmud or Rashi concluding from this anything against male-male sex, other than anal sex - men merely looking at naked men wouldn't even be in the same ball park.Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Newman says: (1) Who exactly defines deviant. If you are trying to claim that all homosexuality is deviant." -- This is not about opinions this is about what the Hebrew Bible specifically says and then supported with the additional rabbinical laws (not mere "opinions" as you demean them) and which you wish to twist into something "NEW-man" that was never there and never meant. It is obvious what you are attempting to do. (2) Newman says: "Go and read WP:NPOV and WP:Civility yet again." -- Wrong again. It is not against WP:NPOV to cite verbatim what a verse in the Bible says, how it was always studied and practiced in Judaism. If you want to come along and say that last week someone wrote ten articles claiming to use false "exegesis" to justify blow jobs as based on the Bible, then good luck with that silliness. (3) Newman says: "Your accusation of pro-gay is utterly without merit; its based on an utterly circular argument - that if they reach a pro-gay conclusion their research is pro-gay." -- Please let's call a spade a spade. If you are out to use Wikipedia as a format to claim that Judaism somehow (incorrectly on your part) has ever allowed or now permits homosexuality that is your problem and it's clearly a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Your attempts to say that the Orthodox are a "minorty" and do not have a say is a disgusting cruel hoax. You cannot bring "absolute proofs" from Reform or secular scholars simply because they do not accept the Divinity of the Bible and in fact many of them are atheists. They are entitled to their views, write it up in a million articles, but don't claim that they have the tyranny of the "majority" when they deny the authortity and relevance of the Torah and its 613 mitzvot. So quit harping. Their view can be part of an article, but they cannot become putty in your hands to falsely produce a rabbit out of a hat and say, aha, you see Judaism permits blow jobs and kissing between men, which is false and delusional. (4) Newman says: "As for Rashi and the Talmud in relation to strip shows, I would think they'd disallow them, but that would be on the basis of tzniut, not for any pro- or anti-gay reasons. I certainly don't think they'd regard strip-shows as prohibited by the rule against mishk'vei ishah; there's absolutely nothing in the Talmud or Rashi concluding from this anything against male-male sex, other than anal sex - men merely looking at naked men wouldn't even be in the same ball park." -- Um Newman, we are not talking about mere "looking at naked men" like in a mikva, it's an example of how serious the prohibitions against any forms of lechery are, be it male on female or male on male sexual penetration or hugging, kissing, oral sex, outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Nice that you mention tzniut "[sexual] modesty" though, how do you think all your work looks, to show that so many secular scholars, based on mistaken assumptions and drawing false conclusions from the most devout of classical Halachic authorities, who then concoct that forms of graphic gay sex is ok, does not violate the basics of Judaism's laws of tzniut? You are not making any sense in terms of what classical Judaism has to say, be it based on the Written Torah or the Oral Torah as stated in the Shulkhan Arukh and all working in unison which is what Orthodox Judaism is about. One of your fatal errors (you have a few when it comes to the subject of Judaism and Jewish Law) is that you assume that anyone can be a posek ("decisor" of Jewish Law) when only very few can do what you imagine you are abae to do with your outlandish opinions. IZAK (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is about those two verses, specifically about what is being referred to in them. The title is just a convenience. An alternate title would be Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. --Alynna (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alynna, the article focuses on just two words and makes a mountain out of a molehill. It does not give the context. There should be full reference to verses and not just a chopping out of two words from them, building hyopthetical castles in the sky with skewered exegesis that has no connection to the normative body of classical Judaic scholarship as it has been studied, practiced and transmitted for over 3,300 years. This pathetic specimen of an article is violating WP:NOR and WP:NONSENSE on a grand scale. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Several Jewish articles focus on just one or two words. Its not Original Research because its clearly and very obviously cited. Its clearly not Nonsense, also because its clearly and very obviously cited. 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke (talk • contribs)
        The two words alone are not nonsense, but to detach them from their verse and create an entire article based on your notions of "exegesis" is 100% a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NONSENSE. IZAK (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--this belongs in The Bible and homosexuality. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with that argument. (1) It assumes that sub articles should never exist, which is false. (2) It assumes that there are no other articles which would desire to discuss these verses in detail, which is also false - LGBT issues and Judaism, Leviticus 18, for example. Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and merge. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article with this title would be perfectly encyclopaedic, in a Biblical or Talmudic encyclopaedia. I fully expect that when Encyclopaedia Talmudit reaches M it will include an entry for mishkevei isha (though it will probably be a redirect to mishkav zachur). But in a general encyclopaedia it seems too obscure a term. Unlike shaatnez or tzitit it is not used in general conversation even among observant Jews; it only ever comes up when studying these two particular verses, which isn't all that often, because Jews don't tend to give them more attention than any of the other 5843 verses in the Torah. (Those Christians who are obsessed with these two verses usually discuss them in English, and therefore also don't use this term.) So nobody is likely to look up the term, especially transliterated into English. In a general encyclopaedia it really belongs in The Bible and homosexuality or something like that; but perhaps if it gets long it could be a sub-article of that article, with a title like Analysis of the term mishkevei isha or something. -- Zsero (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the likeliness that anyone will look up this information under this name, we can rename it or make a set of redirects to it. Regarding the importance of the information, the importance is that some conservative people are obsessed with those two verses. So it's useful to have some accurate information on them. And regarding your last point, I imagine that's exactly what happened - it was broken out of The Bible and homosexuality because it's too long for a section. --Alynna (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and because it was also discussed in great detail in multiple other articles, creating a major content forking problem, which could only be resolved by putting everything in one place. Newman Luke (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For this you call me out of semi-retirement. This is such a mess of OR, Nonsense, POV, as per dRosenbach, as per Izak, as per nom.. FEH. --Jayrav (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you haven't edited since September, I'd like to know how you found this AfD. What brought you here? If you happened to read it, doesn't that show that people clearly will find the article. If someone asked you to come here, isn't that Meatpuppetry?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman Luke (talk • contribs)
  - Newman, if you'd keep track you'd see that this AfD was legitimately posted at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism [46] and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Mishk'vei ishah [47] both by Avraham (talk · contribs) who is also the nominator of this AfD. Kindly comply with WP:AGF, and your interrogation-style accusation also violates Wikipedia:Etiquette. IZAK (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Newman Luke (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Struck as inappropriate relisting by involved editor. AFDs run 7 days and there is ample discusssion anyways. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close and Merge: As per DRosenbach. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV nightmare, plus per NOTAFORUMFORTALMUDICCONTROVERSY.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are three things I take issue with about your view:
  - (a) There is no such policy
  - (b) You haven't explained why you regard it is as a "POV nightmare", or even what that means
  - (c) Its not really about that Talmud. Its about the Bible.

Newman Luke (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific -- an inherently POV approach that consists of original research and coatracking on matters that are not encycpoledically established (the real meaning of the old testament et al). This essay fails WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH at the very least.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and give someone the chance to start it over without the problems. There is the potential for an article here, but this article as it exists is a mess. I rather doubt there is any real chance that it would be improvable, becausse of the questions of sourcing, citations, what needs citations, and all that. On that basis, I tend to think that just erasing the whole mess and starting over with a blank slate. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into related articles unless completely rewritten. In principle, I don't see a problem with an article on a subject this narrow, but there are serious problems with the article as it stands.
1. It gives undue weight to modern academics and not enough weight to religious institutions and traditional views. There are 60 separate references, and only a single-digit number look like they're non-academic secondary sources. While this makes sense for most articles on Wikipedia, an article on a religious topic should primarily discuss the opinions of religious groups, since those will best explain the subject matter as most people actually view it. Currently, you could read the entire article and be unsure how more than one or two religious groups interpret the phrase, which is a major failing for an article on a religious topic.
2. The article seems to be something like half weasel words. For instance: "how this should be understood is heavily disputed", "Opinions range from ... to ...", "Some liberal theologians", "Several conservative theologians", "A number of Christian Fundamentalists", "The word ... is a matter of contention", "some therefore see", "It is widely argued". Some specific views are attributed to particular academics, and a couple of traditional Jewish sources, but large chunks of the article have to be either rewritten to explain who says what exactly, or else removed.
3. The article is structured confusingly. The lead is very vague and doesn't adequately summarize the article. Much of the rest is a laundry list of opposing views, some referenced and some not, interspersed with flurries of citations (a full quarter of which are tagged as requiring clarification). Some views are given more detail than needed, while others (particularly traditional non-academic views) are mentioned only vaguely and in passing.
4. The article is basically about a grand total of two verses in the Bible, but never actually gives a translation of either, with or without context. This seems like a pretty extraordinary omission: the phrase needs to be put in its Biblical context.

I don't think most of the current content is salvageable. Redirecting the article to Homosexuality and the Bible or such would make more sense than keeping the article in its current form, but if it's rewritten to address all of those problems then it would be fine to keep it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this appears to have unresolvable problems with synthesis. Bfigura ^(talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SYNTH Crafty (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:SYNTH, COATRACK, POV. Very problematic where so much referencing is to the bible -> WP:OR --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Merge whatever's usable to The Bible and homosexuality and then Delete.
1. Between WP:SYNTH, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:POV, I don't think that what's here is salvageable.
2. As the current article jumps between various Christian and Jewish opinions, I don't think that merging it solely to LGBT topics and Judaism or Christianity and homosexuality makes sense.
3. To respond to an objection above by the article creator: I don't believe that "sub articles should never exist", but rather, that unsalvageable or non-notable articles shouldn't exist. And another note to the article creator: badgering !voters doesn't help your case. At all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The issues raised here should be addressed first through the normal editorial process via the article's talk page, not AfD. There has not been enough time given to that process to make a judgement that the article is unsalvageable. --agr (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Izak. The article is not needed, we have a homosexuality and the Torah article already, and we have the Leviticus article. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. in agreement with Yossiea and IZAK considering that the content is potentially viable but better placed in other articles. --yonkeltron (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemable WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many problems as expressed by many editors, and especially violating WP:SYNTH. Shlomke (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete problems beyond repair. Jon513 (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The intro is incorrect and the article which would appear to be about Jewish law on the subject hardly addresses the Jewish viewpoint. It appears to be a hodge-podge of related references wihtout any clear thread. --Redaktor (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In part per DGG, in part as the article has what appears to be about 5-10 quality 3rd party references (uncontested) on the topic, and because 5-secs on Gbooks and Gsholar returns 3-4 works where the topic is discussed in-depth -- implying that this article is a clear pass for WP:GNG. . A search for "Leviticus 18:22" returns a truckload of scholary references, supporting that the topic passes inclusion criteria. I cannot comment if the articles has issues, only that a stand-alone is fully warranted. In this context OR, SYNTH, ESSAY and other deletion rationales are irrelevant, as AfD is not for clean-up. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs some work, and I would support moving it to mishkav zachar. But I think it's notable enough to have a seperate article for it. Kolindigo (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with mishkav zachar as the more commonly used term. Joe407 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as the religious text comes up as a reason for people hating homosexuals, it is notable article. List of mentions of homosexuality in religious books might be a better name for this, and more room to grow. Dream Focus 02:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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