Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 2

< 1 February	3 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Rego

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

Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced, Notability is questioned DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable senior civil servant. All gnews hits come from a single local publication.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sodabottle. RFerreira (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful to know what material the nominator considers contentious. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the connection from DAIGIworld (only reference). The contentious was set by another user also. See the summary. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question. Which of the statements in the article do you consider contentious? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your vote? Do what is good for you. I have answered it. Thanks.--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is who set contentious and I agree with that - Is DAIGIworld (only reference) a reputed publication in India?. 11:05, 6 April 2009 Mr.Z-bot (talk | contribs) m (3,966 bytes) (Unreferenced BLP) (undo) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prabha S. Neeralagi

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

Not sufficiently described to make her notable - No significant publications in the fieldDoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough to meet WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MathSciNet counts 7 papers over the last 33 years, with a total of 6 citations. Search for Gnews was unavailing, Gscholar doesn't improve noticeably on MathSciNet. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand. Borderline notability, but on the good side of that border. LotLE×talk 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious. What makes you say that? Ray^Talk 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The citations to Neeralagi are quite a few more than you indicate. One paper has 33 citations, another 11, etc. That's hardly an overwhelming number, but it's a lot more than the 6 citations you claim, RayAYang. On reflection though, I'll call it "weak keep". LotLE×talk 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't consider 11 to be a lot; the 33 citation paper is not by the subject. It's by somebody who cites the subject. Ray^Talk 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm. I hadn't noticed that RayAYang, if the 33 isn't the right guy being cited, I indeed start to waiver. My !vote is a "weak" one, but I'll monitor this discussion, and possibly change it later. LotLE×talk 08:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, prof fails WP:PROF. JBsupreme (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very low citation count. Abductive (reasoning) 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Clearly notable. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Kalburgi

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

Is wiki notable, please expand it DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scholar's notability is not really questioned, and I have added a source that attests to that. Further sources are likely to be available in Kannada since that is the language Kalburgi worked in. Abecedare (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. VC of a State university and winner of a Sahitya Akademi award. Satisfies #6 and #2 of WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As winner of the Sahitya Akademi Award he passes WP:BIO, and also others like WP:PROF as Vice-Chancellor of a state university. –SpacemanSpiff 05:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpacemanSpiff and Sodabottle. LotLE×talk 23:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:PROF based on several significant awards; easily sourceable. Nsk92 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Wesleyan Church

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

This local church as no notability รัก-ไทย 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete, seems to be quite an average church. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable; the only Google hits are local directories and such. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ito Sakata

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

This actor does not seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lacks significant coverage from reliable third party publications. Typical disclaimer: if non-trivial coverage can be located in a non-English language, and can be confirmed to be from a reliable source I will withdraw my !delete. JBsupreme (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible PR by management firm, and no results which may not have been added by the firm on Google (first 8 pages) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bit parts are not what's needed to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. She may become notable in the future for her voice acting work, but for now, delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. This is a Google translation of the Japanese Wikipedia page. This is a Google News archive search for her Japanese name, 阪田伊都 – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, the Japanese Wikipedia has a "blood type" field in their infoboxes? How weird. JBsupreme (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Blood types in Japanese culture -- it's taken more seriously than, say, zodiac signs are in the States, and I meet a lot of people who swear by their horoscope. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some references. Google translation doesn't give you more than a general idea of what the Japanese articles are discussing. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the article now passes GNGs or not? --Malkinann (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I redid the LOW, I noticed that all but one were bit parts. And even the non-bit part isn't enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. She may be notable some day, but not today. —Farix (t | c) 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have you checked the Japanese Wikipedia article for this? She has done a lot more work than is listed. [1] Dream Focus 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added in the information from the Japanese Wikipedia. Most of the things she has been in, have Wikipedia articles about them. Dream Focus 05:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it was a repeat of what is already on the article or can't be cited, so it has been removed. And the Japanese Wikipedia is not a reliable source either and can be as full of junk as the English Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And is almost never sourced...Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I always chuckle when someone claims that the JP Wiki is better than the English. —Farix (t | c) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable? How often does someone upload wrong information about a voice actor? Is that a common occurrence? Would it be possible to just tag something you doubt, and then someone who owns one of those series can then check the credits? [2] Lot of stuff edited out. Would searching for the Japanese names of those series together with that of the voice actor, produce any results? Sometimes companies list their full cast on their official websites. Doesn't the voice actor's site list her work somewhere? Anyone speak Japanese and feel like finding out? Hard to navigate and look around through Google translator. Dream Focus 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People put up dubious information all the time in biographies, and the JP Wikipedia is just as sustainable to dubious information as the EN Wikipedia. This is why reliable sources are required for biographies of living people. If the information is viewed by an editor as dubious and is unsourced, the editor has a responsibility to remove it. And it's interesting that you are holding up a series of edits I made removing such dubious information that you had inserted as if it was some sort of "bloody shirt". —Farix (t | c) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't just looking for factual accuracy. Everything needs to be verifiable with reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not what i could can a "voice actor career" with just one worth mention role. Fail WP:ENTERTAINER. --KrebMarkt 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She was in 11 of the 12 episodes of Dōjin Work [3] Significant character in a notable series. And doing some searching for the deleted things, there are many places that list her in it. Just what's on the list now should prove notability. Dream Focus 20:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER specifically requires that an actor have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This actress has only one significant role then their career. The rest have been bit-part with no significance at all. —Farix (t | c) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I have seen, this actor fails WP:ENTERTAINER as well as our general inclusion guidelines. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails WP:N and WP:BIO/WP:ENTERTAINER. With no significant, or even insignificant, coveage on this person, not only are they unnotable but there is no true way to create an article on Sakata that meets WP:BLP that has anything more than their name, which of course is not appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete This makes 8, I do not see notability here as she has played very monor roles in anime. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, has voiced characters in notable series, contains highly reliable sources such as this, which is self-proclaimed to be "the worlds most highly trusted anime news source". That to me is an indicator of notability. Voiced a secretary in Eden of the East, Secretaries are well noted for their emotion in speaking, this voice actor should be credited for such an accomplishment and have a good article written about her obviously notable career. As for having a significant role. Who decides? Is voicing a charatcer in 11 out of 12 episodes of a notable series not good enough? We accept articles about actors who may have only had small minor roles in multiple films, even those who appear in z-lister films, so why not voice actors too if they are covered in sources which the anime project generaly regard as reliable? Whats the difference to say Yoshiko Asai who according to the anime website has only had two major roles, the rest similarly minor roles like this AFD subject? ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 21:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANN Encyclopedia is not a reliable source (certainly not highly), and the Anime project does NOT consider it reliable - it is specifically listed as unreliable in the project pages and the project itself made a concerted effort to remove its use as references from GA and above articles (delisting them if no other source could be found). The ANN encyclopedia is user edited, unlike their actual news stories. Your response here is very confusing and I almost suspect it is being WP:POINTy and intended almost sarcastically because of the Runa Akiyama‎ AfD...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, There just seems a bit of a contradiction thats all. I find it hard to believe that certain individuals will claim obvious notability in one place yet reject another based on what appears to be little difference in coverage on actual TV site databases. The criteria in this case is "hasn't really had a signficant role" but that is really open to interpretation. They are still credited roles, which normally meets actor requirements so why not voice actors? Many of the project members themseleves said sources like www.81produce are reliable and indicate notability. I find it unusual that nobody is really seriously taking into account sourcing over any of these nominations and are making a decision of notability based on their own POV and self-knowledge of the subject matter. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between what I'm saying here and discussions where I've said keep is whether any roles have been leading roles, one of the main protagonists or antagonists. These do not require "self-knowledge" of the subject matter but a consultation of the articles of the series the person acted in. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're being deliberately facetious here and completely twisting my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runa Akiyama and taking them out of context. My assertion there is that Akiyama has had several significant roles in multiple series. And in accordance to the criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER We may have an article on her. Sakata, on the other hand, has only one significant role. WP:NOTE is just one possible guideline for inclusion. WP:BIO is another. A subject isn't need to have significant coverage by reliable reliable-party source if it meets one of the other inclusion criteria. If passing WP:NOTE was required for all subject, then there wouldn't need any of the subject specific criteria. —Farix (t | c) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their most notable roles are minor and most of their work is background voices - most of these "characters" don't even have names. No prejudice against recreation should they ever become notable, but they sure aren;t now. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MwForum

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

I had prodded this forum software, but also deprodded it after a request on its talk page for a discussion of its notability. Pcap ping 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bramble

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

Non-notable academic. Only mentioned in one article listed in the entry, written by Socialist Alternative which fails as a neutral reliable source. Fails WP:Academic. No notable contributions, articles listed are minor and refer largely to existing work. No listed academic awards. No memberships in prestigous scholary organisations.His work does not affect a signficant number of academic institutions.Holds now proffessorship chairs. Not covered by WP:CREATIVE Rotovia (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteAs stated above Rotovia (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this nominator has !voted both here and below. It seems like clarifying/refactoring his separate comments to avoid appearances of attempting to game the discussion would be helpful. LotLE×talk 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WorldCat shows holdings about what is expected for an academic book (<200). His peer-reviewed scholarship, though consisting of about 20 papers, is barely cited by other works. WoS shows counts of 9, 2, 2, 0, 0, ... for an h-index of at most 2. The overall picture here seems to be one where impact is far short of what is required by WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep. Independent sources. Notable book. On executive of notable organization. This nom feels like one of those far too many cases now of deletionist bias. LotLE×talk 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Now that I have made a minor improvement to the article (nothing affecting notability, just WP:STYLE and wording tweaks), but also since I looked around for web presence a bit, I change my "Keep" to "Strong keep". This is one of those article where it would be a stupid, damn shame to needlessly delete a notable figure with a good biography. General reasons and argument are not different, I've just looked a bit more in detail at the independent sources. LotLE×talk 09:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here I am wondering why I can't get anything deleted these days. I feel like the pendulum has swung too far in the keep direction lately. Abductive (reasoning) 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable author. I do not think he passes wp:prof, however. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good faith assumption would be appreciated. I can see no indication of notable works cited by other academic sources as required for WP:Academic. Please reference these if you have located them Rotovia (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass on WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

For the purposes of WP:Bio a number of categories including WP:Author fall under WP:Creative, and if someone is an academic they are covered by WP:Academic. The books are also not notable in and of themselves Rotovia (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: a subject may pass in any category that they fall under. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

He does not fall under WP:Author, and books are not notable Rotovia (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he writes books he would appear to fall into the category of WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Of course, the writing of the books part is not necessarily sufficient – like peer-reviewed pubs, they have to be able to clear a "significance" hurdle (e.g. "a significant or well-known work" in WP:AUTHOR), which we normally assess by institutional holdings. Here, WorldCat shows 185 for the Trade Unionism book, 3 for the Labor Party book, and 71 for the Jock Barnes book. These stats don't strike me as very impressive, even for academic-sector books. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment There seems to be a trend on AfD's to judge many individuals who hold academics posts by the hyper-strict criteria of WP:PROF (which is itself vastly more restrictive than it was a few years ago). However, many of these biographies (including this one), easily meet WP:GNG and/or WP:AUTH, even if they fail on WP:PROF by itself. Our goal on AfD discussion should not be to locate the most restrictive criteria possible for each topic, but to determine if it meets notability under any of the prongs of that standard. LotLE×talk 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that this subject is being judged under WP:AUTHOR. Those notvoters above who are only addressing WP:PROF will likely be ignored by the closing admin. Abductive (reasoning) 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The !vote by Agricola44 and the first !vote by Rotovia explicitly state failure under WP:PROF as their reason for their opinion. Rotovia later "casts" a second, duplicate !vote indicating that he doesn't believe the bio subject satisfies WP:AUTH, but Agricola44 has not indicated whether he has considered WP:AUTH as of this moment. LotLE×talk 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification. Please re-read my second entry. I've reported institutional holdings for his books, which are routinely used to assess WP:AUTH. In effect, I'm claiming (without casting an explicit 2nd "delete") that the subject does not pass WP:AUTH either. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable as author Rotovia (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote more than once. You voted on 3 Feb. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Allow me to clarify, I'm offering my vote under WP:Author Rotovia (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Agapova

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

I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the extensive filmography at ru:Агапова, Нина Фёдоровна and her status as an Honored Artist of the RSFSR. This] is a machine translation of the Russian Wikipedia page. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep every Honored Artist of the RSFSR because such distinction provides a clear notability status. The actress will remain in the history of the Russian moviemaking.sulmues (talk--Sulmues 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meritorious artists are most definitely notable. I've also added a couple refs to address the "unreferenced BLP" issue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I was concerned about the arguments noting the now-banned user who initially created the article, and who submitted edits to it up until February 1. Indeed, reading that revision does give serious reason for concern. However, a diff between that version and the current one [4] indicates that the article has undergone significant changes, and a read of the current version has removed most of the material which concerned me (what is left may well be appropriate and relevant, but my job here is not to make a complete audit of the article). With a significant number of people arguing to keep and making a reasonable argument by pointing to sources covering Mr. McLaren, I cannot see a consensus to delete this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth McLaren

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

Does not pass WP:N, entire article is just a fork off of Robert Baden-Powell's bio article and sexuality article. Policy is very clear in stating that relationships do not confer notability. No evidence exists to show that Kenneth McLaren is notable in his own right. Please see Invalid Criteria for Notability Nefariousski (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is really difficult to find any independent notability for this guy. There's no obituary in The Times for 1924, which is is a 'major' source for contemporary notability, nor any other specific mention. pablo_hablo. 23:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An impressive amount of work has been done on this article, there are other mentions of both Mc and Mac out there (independent of his friendship with Baden-Powell) too. It is difficult with some of the online mentions to definitively tie them down to this particular Kenneth McLaren, but I think he now squeaks past the notability bar. pablo_hablo. 16:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any notability that he has is only in relation to his friendship with Baden Powell, he is not independently notable. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article does need some work, but those who might do that work are being distracted by people questioning references. The main work needed just keeps getting delayed. Certainly McLaren's relationship with Baden-Powell is important, but it has been noticed. His role in Scouting has also been noted. Readers will want to know more about the man who was B-P's Assistant Scoutmaster at the important Brownsea Island Scout camp and who was the first Manager of Scouting immediately after its foundation. I think there are more sources to find about that. There is also much more to say about his role in the Boer War, where he served with Plumer. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was an assistant at Brownsea only, one of about 25 others and the managers position appears to have had little authority or any work of note, likely a unimportant position given to him by his friend, there are no details of what happened in this role or when he left or who replaced him or if the post was even continued at all, imo he was a very minor player in the early scout movement, again he is remembered only as a friend of B Powell. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brownsea. Where do you get the 25 from? There were 6 adults present. One was Quartermaster, one was catering officer, one was cook, one was an instructor from the Coastguard station, one was Percy Everett, Pearson's literary editor who was not there all the time. McLaren was B-P's assistant and is appropriately called Assistant Scoutmaster, with B-P as Scoutmaster. All of what you say about the manager is covered by Jeal - his role, his fights with Peearson's, when he left etc. It is an important part of scouting history. You are hot on wanting sources. Do you have one that he was a very minor player? --Bduke (Discussion) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read that right? Are you honestly asking that he be proven "not notable"? Last I checked the burdon of proof is on proving someone IS notable, not the other way around. Someone isn't just assumed to be notable until proven otherwise. Nefariousski (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asking that. It was tongue in cheek. Off2riorob has been very keen to get sources for his rank, his school, when he joined his regiment, and so on, where there is no reason to challenge the statements. Now he claims "he was a very minor player in the early scout movement", after showing a very poor knowledge of the Brownsea Island Camp and Jeal's book. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is one of Notability. Completely remove any relationship to Baden-Powell (notability is not inherited through relationship) and then ask yourself if on his own merit, does Kenneth McLaren meet WP:N. Can you please give me some examples of what Kenneth McLaren is notable for (that meet WP:N) outside of his relationship to a notable person? Nefariousski (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did. Role in scouting is not just linked to B-P otherwise we would not have an article on his wife. It is about the movement. Of course, he is not as notable, as Lady B-P, but he is noticed and that is how we define notability. There is also possibly the Boer War. However, I have other things to do. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His wife is independently notable through works of her own. Her notability doesn't hinge upon being the wife of B-P. Her notability can be established by her list of high awards and honors alone. If every mention of B-P was removed from her article she would still pass WP:N Nefariousski (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A minor but interesting personage, who was a significant other to a very important historical figure. I second Bduke's view that there is more to unearth on him. Though not relevant to this debate, I would like to note that the well-meaning individuals trying to scuttle this article are the selfsame who have been twisting themselves into pretzels trying to cover up the dodgy sexuality of Baden-Powell, the founder of the boy scouts, by attempting to delete that article also. The fact that McLaren was B-P's intimate friend for thirty years could not have anything to do with your other efforts to improve Wikipedia, could it guys? Haiduc (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I'd like to note that Haiduc was just blocked indef per Arbcom ruling. The only reason I'm posting this is because the reason for his blocking indirectly pertains to the subject matter of this article that he created. Nefariousski (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Haiduc created this article and he has been banned. While, I know this was not your intention, I just hope that your comment is not seen by some as tarring those other editors who support keeping this article with the same brush. An article does not belong to its original editor. In this case there are people who have come across Kenneth McLaren from the Scouting articles and Scouting history in general and wanted to know more about him. We happen to think this might develop into a useful and interesting article. --Bduke(Discussion) 07:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're 100% correct, and for the record let me state that I in no way intended nor intend to say any supporters of this article have anything to do with or share the ideas of Haiduc. I meerly wanted to bring this to the attention of those involved with this discussion because the motivations for creating the article (initially) are related to what got Haiduc blocked and I felt that full disclosure was warranted to steer us away from the now deleted Baden-powell sexuality link and more towards establishing notability for McLaren in his own right and barring that opening up the possibility to merge the content of this article into the main B-P article. Nefariousski (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with "minor" and I agree that he was significant to someone that was notable. But notability is not inherited. Here's the test. Let's pretend that there was no evidence at all that McLaren ever had met Baden-Powell. For what would he be notable? If the entire claim to notability is that he possibly had a relationship with a notable character then he clearly doesn't meet WP:N Nefariousski (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Under that logic why not have an article for his favorite brother Augustus? He was obviously significant to BP. How about his Grandson? This is a prime example for why notability isn't inherited. Nefariousski (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are pushing that kind of argument too far, as is illustrated by the fact that we do have an article on his Grandson, which is a well sourced and interesting article. It is Michael Baden-Powell. Do you want to delete that also? --Bduke (Discussion) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence about the notability of Michael Baden-Powell. While it's clear that he's an important figure in scouting he's only an important figure in scouting due to his relation to B-P. But that's another issue to be thought about independently of the Kenneth McLaren article. Nefariousski (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bduke. While probably notable mostly because of his relationship to Baden-Powell, this is irrelevant regarding WP:GNG (meaning that, if sources talk of him, as it seems, he is not simply presumed notable by association as the nom seems to imply). --Cyclopia ^talk 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from his obituary the only sources available (so far) only refer to him in context of his relationship with B-P. How does that pass WP:GNG. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just would like you to explain your reasoning. A good example for notability not being inherited can be seen in this AFD for Andrew Jackson Sr. Nefariousski (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is not inherited" means that a subject X cannot be presumed notable only because of relationship with notable subject Y. However, if several RS appropriately discuss subject X, even if in relationship with Y, then the subject passes WP:GNG. Example: X is the wife or husband of a notable scientist. Is she notable only because of that? No, of course. But now, imagine there are three biographies of such scientist, and all these three biographies of the scientist dedicate several pages to him or her. Is he/she notable now? Yes, because we have several RS discussing the subject enough to allow us to write content. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The example of Andrew Jackson Sr. shows exactly the opposite of that. Multiple RS mention him and his relationship / influence of his son. Yet none of those sources evaluated him on his own merits nor was he the subject of any of the sources. I'm not advocating we blindly follow that example but it is very very similar in nature to your example. The only source that puts much discussion into McLaren is Jeal and only there is it discussed in context to his relation to B-P. Outside of that we have what? His obituary? His military records? Nefariousski (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow you in full. We have sources. They talk of the guy. Why is fact that they talk of him in the context of coverage of another person relevant in any way to the discussion? If we have enough RS sources to write a bio, why shouldn't we? That's the core of WP:GNG. The example you made ended with a merge, so it is unclear what it should tell us (if anything, that actually you don't want the article deleted: a merge is something that can be dealt with editing, not deletion). Notice that being the subject of any of the sources is explicitly not required by GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia, practically all secondary source discuss him very briefly, and always in connection with B-P or someone else, e.g Baker Russel. The "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG is not met. Most of the details in the bio are filled from various primary sources or other passing mentions. The only significant coverage is presumably the obituary in the Cavalry Journal. Pcap ping 08:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no access to most of the sources indeed, but for example the one from the Anglo-Boer war website talks only about him. That said, if these details can be reported without resorting to WP:OR, I'd say we can have a WP:V verifiable article on the subject, made using several sources, therefore in my opinion it passes WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is even better. It's a paged dedicated to biographies of those in the Boer war, and entirely unrelated to Scouting or homosexuality. Clearly notable for multiple things. Pcap ping 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Pcap ping 06:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I recommend that people obsessed with nuking contributions of banned users read the references before voting. 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but he's not independently notable, once BP is removed from the picture. Clear delete per WP:FAILN - Alison ^❤ 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, that's not a guideline for inclusion or exclusion. It's a list of instructions how to proceed with something that fails WP:N. Pcap ping 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. Make it a WP:GNG fail, so. My point re notability via association still stands - Alison ^❤ 07:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. He was covered at least three times in the London Gazette for his actions in the Boer War, got a DSO, and has a biography on site dedicate to the War, but not to to B-P or scouting. He's also covered in C. R. B. Barrett, History of the XIII Hussars, 1911; an excerpt is posted on a B-P related site, but the original publication is a historical work dedicated to the war, not to B-P and his relationships. Pcap ping 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That site has 100 similar biographies of Boer War DSO recipients whose names began with M. The London Gazette records Mentions in Dispatches (which MacLaren was twice) and other awards. The book chapter mentions dozens of officers by name. These are not evidence of notability. Kanguole 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:notability does not equal fame, as that guideline explains. All those people are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Of course, nobody cares to create those all those bios here, but that's a different matter. They are certainly more interesting than the random Wikipedia village article with a blank page and an infobox with its location. Pcap ping 13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Every soldier has some sort of hometown hero mention in the local newspaper (I've got two of my own) and historical military records are becoming widely available online. That doesn't equal notability. If you google my name you'll find a dozen hits from reliable sources and enough information to scrape together a stub article but by no means do I meet WP:N. I wouldn't be suprised if that was the same for half the people on WP. Nefariousski (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, it does mean that you meet WP:GNG, exactly, even if maybe by a small margin. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I hardly think being mentioned in a list with dozens if not hundreds of others or a few blurbs about service dates or promotions meets the word or spirit of the "Significant Coverage" tenent of GNG. Not to mention that passing GNG isn't grounds for inclusion alone. Nefariousski (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable independently of his friendship with Baden Powell. Viridae^Talk 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong [5]. (see above) Pcap ping 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not swayed by Cyclopia's reasoning. This is a textbook case of where notability is not inherited. As this is just another content fork/coatrack article by a now-banned user, I recommend a speedy as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going in search of print documentation today. Given what I've seen in GBooks I am dubious that this fellow played that important a part in scouting history, and the rest of it is just coatracking. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet the latest in a series of pov forks created by a pro-pedophilia editor, since banned. This one was created when another of his distorted forks was on the verge of deletion. Basta.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was created on February 6 2006, long before the AfD was started. Who created it is not a reason for deletion and you are throwing mud at all the other editors of this article on the basis of who created it. Please withdraw this comment. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how this is a (POV) fork? Do we have other articles about this subject? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's a non-notable ex cavalry major (there have been thousands). The article was created to discuss a theoretical relationship between this figure and another. That is the sole reason the article on this non-notable was created, and it will be a constant magnet from such coatracking nonsense.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is currently in dispute. The reason for which an article has been created are completely irrelevant regarding to its appropriateness. The fact also that it can be a "magnet" is, at best, a reason for protection, not deletion. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was covered at least three times in the London Gazette for his actions in the Boer War, got a DSO, and has a biography on site dedicate to the War, but not focused on B-P or scouting. He's also covered in C. R. B. Barrett, History of the XIII Hussars, 1911; an excerpt is posted on a B-P related site, but the original publication is a historical work dedicated to the war, not to B-P or Scouting. He is also mentioned in the autobiography of Victoria Cross recipient Percival Marling (not a Scouting related book) [6]. Also covered, in the press of the time on polo, and historical record thereof. He was a player and later an umpire after retiring from the army in 1905: [7] [8]. Of course, most of the google books hits are either scouting related [9] [10] [11] [12] or sexuality studies that brood over his relationship with B-P [13] [14] [15] [16], but the relationship is also mentioned in purely historical works [17]. This speaks more the academia of today that it does of him; see the comment of User:Baccyak4H in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th_nomination) on the matter of modern LGBT scholarship. Just because he might be famous today because of his relationship (in certain circles), that doesn't mean he isn't WP:notable for anything else; to quote from WP:N "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, ...". Pcap ping 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His Boer War service is little different from any number of other officers. The London Gazette briefly records Mentions in Dispatches (which MacLaren was twice) and other awards. The biography is one of 100 similar sketches of Boer War DSO recipients whose names began with M. The regimental history chapter mentions dozens of officers by name. Kanguole 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does this mean? Do we delete notable rock bands articles because they're all just the same -you know, playing guitars, publishing albums, they're just another entry along with thousands others in history of rock music's books, etc.? --Cyclopia ^talk 14:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This suggests to me that additional articles may required, not that this one should be going through AfD. DiverScout (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the brief notices in the London Gazette, his service record, 3 sentences in the regimental history and a passing mention in Marling's book do not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. The polo bit isn't worth mentioning. If his notability is to be established separately from the BP speculation, it will have to be based entirely on his role in Scouting. Kanguole 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being the first manager of the Boy Scouts provides enough notability for retention. Mentions in the London Gazette and issue of DSO provide additional support to notability. Brownsea staff member and friendship with Baden-Powell provides a footnote to the same. "Other stuff exists" arguments would include many less notable military officers and individuals being listed on Wikipedia. The fact that a few people may wish to abuse the article for their own ends is certainly no grounds for deletion at all. The whole of Wikipedia will need to be deleted if that ever becomes an accepted argument in AfD. DiverScout (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good point. I remember that some vandal kept adding Obama to Red diaper baby in 2008 or so. Obviously nobody thought the whole article should be deleted just because it was targeted with that nonsense. Pcap ping 01:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly aimed at expressing a particular POV regarding a friend of Baden-Powell. It is entirely appropriate to mention McLaren in the BP article, but the only claim of notability concerns the relation of the subject to BP. There are many military officers who have been wounded, and many people have participated in the Scout movement. There is no other content available regarding the subject except for the implicit invitation to the reader to infer an intimate relationship with Baden-Powell. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A particular point of view? The only thing mentioned in this article is a multiple-referenced statement that they were friends. Which POV is that? Or do you mean an allegation that is not even mentioned in the article? There are many officers who have done a lot less who have Wikipedia articles, but I cannot find others who were the first manager of the Scout movement or the first Secretary of the Boy Scouts Association as far as I am aware. I therefore assume that he was the primary holder of these posts in what was to become the largest global youth movement. Please correct me if I am wrong in this belief. DiverScout (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DiverScout. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mostly per DiverScout. In general, the citations discussion McLaren in the article establish general notability. LotLE×talk 05:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bali ultimate. JBsupreme (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DiverScout.-Phips (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap and DiverScout. Nsk92 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established apart from connections to Baden-Powell. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whatever the motivations of the person who initially created it, this is now a decently-referenced article about the individual who became the first manager of the Boy Scouts movement and, as I'd forgotten when I posted my keep statement, the first secretary of the Boy Scouts Association. Please could some of the deletionists explain how these facts are non-notable? DiverScout (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Easily enough coverage about him to warrant a mention, the only question is whether there is sufficient groups for an article separate from Baden-Powell. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a coatrack article for Robert Baden-Powell. There's nothing of any real significance indicating why it should be merged, either. The editor who created this article made it abundantly clear that it was to further an agenda {claiming he was a "significant other" to Baden-Powell with no evidence and "there is more to unearth on him" [18]). He was also known to misrepresent sources. If someone still feels McLaren is notable enough for an article, let them recreate the article from scratch. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the article history and at the talk page, you'll that that has already happened: the article has been rewritten, and every source checked. I'm all for deleting the gigantic syntheses Haiduc has left behind (see Pederastic couples in Japan for instance), but this was an article easy to fix, and it was already fixed. Pcap ping 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems notable to me, even if only of minor notability. If there are WP:COATRACK issues, they can be dealt with by removing offending text. The article appears to a well-sourced biography. It is hardly appropriate to merge one person inot another. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems that a lot of people are voting to delete this article without having read it and are requesting the deletion of an article that effectively no longer exists, written by an author who has been banned, to an agenda that is no longer being served. This all seems very strange to me. DiverScout (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of this article has a history of misrepresenting sources and all his work should be deleted on suspicion - otherwise somebody has to go through all his edits. Any volunteers? Delete! Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water, as a quick look at the diff since that editor last edited, shows that the article has essentially been completely rewritten. There is nothing remaining that is in the least suspicious. I agree with the comment above from DiverScout. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People have been 'going through his edits', which is one reason why this article has been rewritten. Others are up at AfD also. You should judge this article as it is now. pablo_hablo. 11:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still say delete it. The article still contains tendentious edits - Haiduc made the edit telling us that BP nicknamed McLaren 'The Boy' (here: [19]). That little bit of info becomes important in a small article such as this and it is intended to stir suspicions about the relationship between the two men. Haiduc created this article as a propaganda opportunity and not because the subject is noteworthy. McLaren was a friend of BP and he won the DSO (not notable in itself - my great-uncle won the Military Cross) and he played some role in the growth of the scout movement (not notable because we don't know what his role was - was it secretary, manager or what? Apparently he was ill at that time and it might turn out that he played virtually no role at all). This information can be included in other articles - it will not be lost if this article is deleted. Delete. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first thing I wanted to delete when I saw this article. But his nickname is used in many (hagiographic) Scouting texts [20] [21], not at all related to LGBT studies (you can find a ton of those on a gbooks search). Even pure military history sources use it [22] [23] [24]. It's hard to make an argument it's POV when so many sources from different fields use it. Granted, the nickname of MacLaren is an important part in the "repressed homosexual" theory about B-P, which is discussed at Baden-Powell#Sexuality; the most recent three biographies of B-P include a discussion of that matter in connection with McLaren's nick name, only the 1964 one leaves it out, but still mentions the nickname [25]. Pcap ping 00:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now responding to other articles and not to this one. Your original response to this article, before you did the research, was correct and appropriate. This article was set up for propaganda purposes and we can't just paper over the cracks by changing a few things. The article tells us nothing about the heroism that won McLaren the DSO. It tells us nothing about the nature of the illness he suffered. It tells us almost nothing about his work for the Scout movement. It tells us almost nothing about his education, his family, his ancestry etc etc etc. It gives us no real context in which to understand his nickname properly. The article doesn't say enough to justify its own existence. It says enough to make us think McLaren might have been BP's bumboy. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I now see that you have made some significant changes to the article since I last looked at it, which somewhat strengthens your position about retaining it. Such late changes make it very awkward to argue anything here and it's not very helpful for a coherent debate. However, I think the article still needs a lot more info about McLaren in order to innoculate it against pederastic innuendo - a bigger picture of his life would put everything in context. I don't think there is enough info out there for that so I am staying with DELETE. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Falls far short of independent notability, in particular, fails all aspects of WP:BIO. The sources have nothing more than trivial passing mentions of McLaren in context of Baden-Powell and his position with the Scouts (that also was conferred by Baden-Powell), and nothing about any independent actions or accomplishments. And his name is included on some long lists of military-related names and dates. None of that is sufficient for an article per WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [changed my comment after additional research - see below --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]
- I agree about the military part, but am unsure about the scouting part. I think the question is whether he gets significant coverage in scholarly histories of the Scout movement. I haven't read those, but the article doesn't claim that he does. Kanguole 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed to: Keep and continue verifying all sources added prior to the re-write. My initial searches did not show notability, but after doing some more research, I found that there is documentation of McLaren's role as one of the early icons of scouting. He was not nearly as well-known as Baden-Powell, but as one first scoutmasters and the first Secretary of the association, notable enough for an article. However, because the banned user Haiduc is known for routinely misquoting sources, any references that were initially added by him should be removed from the article until they can be verified. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jack, I don't agree with keeping this nasty little bomb. Look at my comments above about 'The Boy' and about the article's notability. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm changing my note on this yet again. I certainly agree about the disingenuous reasons that the article was started by Haiduc, and in my initial research I didn't find McLaren notable. Then I reversed my view on that when I found multiple scouting newsletters that mentioned him as the first Secretary in 1908, so that seemed notable. But the various arguments on the other side are compelling, and his notability does appear to be confined to very slight mentions in passing. So for now, I'm removing both my !votes and will just leave this as a comment. I'll post again after some more consideration, if the AfD is still open. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've now done more research and determined that my first impression was correct, McLaren does not meet notability requirements for a bio article. What led me astray in working on the Google searches is that his name is mentioned often in scouting sources, including his nickname of "the Boy", but in following the links and looking closer, I found that they all repeated the same minimal content, that he was Baden-Powell's friend, he was called "the Boy", and that he was appointed by B-P as first manager or secretary of the association. I could find no sources that went any deeper. Nothing about his actual work with the scouts. If he were notable, someone would have noted what he did. It appears that his name is in some early scouting papers, and then those same sentences propagated almost word-for-word through the organization as various local scouting groups put out newsletters and mentioned the early history of the Boy Scouts. But in all thouse sources, I found nothing at all in any greater depth than the mention of his name and position. That's not enough for an article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References. At the last version edited by Haidoc there were only 5 references. The first two were added by other editors just before that. The third was to Rosenthal, page 48 and that is correct. The wording pointing to that reference has been changed since then. The last two references were to Jeal and they appear to have been checked by many people, although please see the talk page for information about page numbers changing from one edition of the book to another. I think we have removed all influence of Haidoc. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any significant coverage of MacLaren's role in the Scouting movement in Jeal or similar works? There's an impressive amount about his life in the article, but it all seems to have been assembled from fragmentary mentions in a wide variety of sources. Kanguole 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll let other anwers the part about scouting in more detail, but my imprssion is that there are scattered refs throughout Jeal's the book [26], but there's also about the same amount of info on his role in the siege of Mafeking in this history book; he is mentioned in more history books, see above, but this one has the most because it's about a specific battle. The only text that's exclusively about him is his military record on a site dedicate to the Boer War, also discussed above. Notability is somewhat marginal, but sufficient, I think. Pcap ping 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sufficient for what? His notability is dwarfed by the controversial issues surrounding BP's sexuality. That is why Haiduc created this article - it's territory he and others like him can dominate very easily with just a few edits. I find it interesting that the present edit (here [27]) contains no mention of sexuality at all. How very odd. Amphitryoniades (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what? The fact that you are concerned that something "might" happen has totally no bearing on whether or not Kenneth McLaren is notable. The issue of Haiduc's motivation has absolutely no bearing on it either. Why are so many, mostly US, editors focussing their attention on this irrelevant issue? Even those against the article are noting that he is listed in a large number of texts. The only question is whether McLaren has notability. DiverScout (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sexuality is an unavoidable issue in a biography about McLaren. Why is there no mention of that issue in the present edit? Because we are voting on whether it should be kept or not. It's ridiculous. Somebody needs to edit the sexual issue back in so that we can see how it affects the article. Amphitryoniades (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One reason why nothing has been added here is that those of who know the sources do not have time. After the deletion of the "Sexuality of B-P article" we are trying to find a better and shorter way of wording the section in the main article on B-P. When we agree on that we might agree on a form of words for this article. I really do think that some people are getting over excited about this. Haidoc's edits on B-P and McLaren in various places were certainly pushing a point of view but they were, I believe, far from the worst of his edits. His POV of B-P is held by quite respectable people. I do think we can and should now forget about Haidoc. Plenty of us will keep an eye on this article if it is kept. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should create and edit articles as if you won't be here tomorrow to look after them because someday you won't be. McLaren's lack of notability is a serious structural weakness when there are so many peripheral issues about BP's sexuality. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say I would be around. I said plenty of people would be around. Wikipedia would quickly go to pot if nobody was watching the articles. We should not be determining the future of of articles on peripheral issues, i.e. Haidoc and his like. I really do not understand what all the fuss about BP's sexuality is. It is a normal think to go into biographies. This guy is not massively notable in world terms but he meets our requirements and readers of the B-P will want to learn a little more about him. I think we now have a better wording in the B-P article and a small part of that can go in this artcile, but I have to run now. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current state of the article is a compilation of many details gathered from scattered mentions of the man in several sources, none of which apparently give the "significant coverage" required by GNG, except for coverage of Baden-Powell's relationship with him. Kanguole 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some more examples of the problems with this article - why do the following statements of completely non-notable facts have so many footnotes? (Usually, that happens when someone is trying to prove something, ~~in this case, Haiduc~~).

McLaren was brought in to help with the growing Scout movement in 1907, serving on the staff at the Brownsea Island Scout camp.[12][3][15][16]

OK, he served on the staff - that needs four footnotes?

McLaren first met Baden-Powell (also a 13th Hussars officer) in 1881. Although McLaren was 20 at the time, Baden-Powell nicknamed him "the Boy", on account of his appearance.[6][5][10][11][12]

So, B-P called him "the Boy" - that needs five foonotes?

The two became fast friends, their relationship being one of the most important friendships in Baden-Powell's life.[12][3][13]

Three footnotes to say he was an important friend to B-P?

This is the core of the the issue - it is B-P who was notable, not McLaren. Notability is not inherited. Those comments about their relationship can go in the B-P bio article.

Further -- McLaren is not mentioned in either of the articles about Boy Scout and Scouting (as of the current timestamp). Those articles have much detail about B-P and other people in the history of Scouting, but they don't include McLaren. McLaren is listed in the article on Brownsea Island Scout camp, but only in one sentence, stating that he was B-P's friend and assistant.

If McLaren were notable, there would be information about him to include in those Scouting articles, but apparently, no-one has found anything to write about his contributions to scouting. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, in the first sentence, are you really saying that the people who added those references are linked to Haidoc, as I do not think he added them? If so, I suggest you retract that fast. That is exactly what I asked about higher up. It is quite unacceptable. Also the references are there because editors here kept asking for more references. Please assume good faith. Secondly, I am puzzled about one of your links in the last para. Boy Scouts is a disambiguation page. You may have confused it with Boy Scout, which was about the boy in Scouting, but has been moved to a better title. Scouting does cover some history, but like the Scout Association (the UK association), it says little about the early 2 years. There is a complex reason for this, unrelated to McLaren. B-P almost lost control of the movement he founded to his publisher, Pearson. The event has been rather down played in Scouting history. McLaren was made Manager to help B-P get control back. Even Pearson does not appear much in Scouting history, but as the publisher of "Scouting for Boys" and the Scout Magazine, his role was vast. I think new histories will begin to cover this better. However, my point is that it is not just McLaren that is not mentioned. Pretty well everything that happened in 1908 and 1909 is not mentioned. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I did not intend to imply any link of other editors with Haiduc, I apologize for the misunderstanding and I have struck out his name from my comment. Regarding the link to Boy Scouts, yes, that was a typo for Boy Scout, and as you noted, there is more history in the article on Scouting, but still not much.

Clearly, you know a lot about the history of the Scouting movement, and I respect your knowledge. When the new histories are published, we may find out that McLaren was notable, and then the article can be restarted. For now, as you wrote, "Pretty well everything that happened in 1908 and 1909 is not mentioned." - since those events were not reported, how can there be sources for an article? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that "Pretty well everything that happened in 1908 and 1909 is not mentioned" in wikipedia articles. It is not that there are no sources. It is just that there are few. If they were used on wikipedia to deal with other matters like the clash between B-P and his editor, the role of McLaren would be clearer to people. Those few sources have been used for this article. The role of Manager v Secretary needs to be resolved, but I think it is clear he was both - Manager when Scouting had no formal structure under Pearson, the publisher, and then adding the formal title of Secretary when what is now the Scout Association was formally incorporated and thus formally needing a Secretary. I feel sure we will find sources for that but I, for one, am busy with other things. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - so, this article needs to be deleted because McLaren is not mentioned in enough sources, then it needs to be deleted because, once sources have been added to satify these editors, he is mentioned in too many? But then you say that he's not mentioned in enough. Seriously? Secondly, how do failings in other articles relate to whether this one should be retained? Then the "Haiduc banner" is waved about again... As there has been no noticeable fresh argument for deletion for a long while, and the article has been rewritten and more than fully referenced to demonstrate the notability of the topic, is it about time to close this discussion? DiverScout (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are being used to support just a few, basic facts and it doesn't matter how you multiply them - the article still lacks a coherent body of information and that's a measure of McLaren's low notability. Look at the positive side - You can create a new article about formative figures in the early history of the scouting movement, including all this information about McLaren. That topic would have more notability and more information than this one. Seeing what tigers you guys are, I don't doubt you'll do something like that if this article is deleted. Anyhow good luck and may the best argument win! Amphitryoniades (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fragmentary nature of the evidence is illustrated by this passage in the article: "According to biographer Tim Jeal, Baden-Powell convinced McLaren to be the Boy Scouts' first manager, but McLaren resigned that position in March 1908.[3] According to other accounts, when the Scout Association was formed in 1908, Major MacLaren became its first Secretary.[17][18]" His role in early Scouting is his main claim to independent notability, but is this all that is available? Kanguole 09:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus, the absence of deletion !votes outside of the nominator, and DGG's pointing out that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR requirements. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Laird

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

Very poorly-sourced BLP of an apparently non-notable "musicologist" from Kansas University. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC either. Unit Anode 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question I haven't done enough research to comment on notability, but why is "musicologist" in quotes? That's a real term, and he is a real professor in his field. [28] Zagalejo^^^ 23:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because I wasn't exactly sure if that put him in the "music" category, or the "academic" category, or both. I didn't mean them as scare quotes, and I'll remove them if they're bothering you. Unit Anode 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the explanation. You don't have to remove the quotes; I just wanted to make sure you weren't casting doubt on his credentials. Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment W. T. Kemper Fellowship for Teaching Excellence is a recognised academic award, however may not be sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC Rotovia (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are the publications irrelevant to WP:ACADEMIC? I really don't know that guideline well, so I can't say whether he's the very model of a modern musicologist. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per directorship, many publications, positive 3rd party review. LotLE×talk 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep co-ed. of a major reference work such as The Cambridge Companion to the Musical indicates that he is regarded as on of the authorities in his subject. Ifanyone prefers to regard this as notability according to WP:AUTHOR, most notable academics in the humanities meet the criteria for both. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. General notability from news reports. Are there records of concert performances? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per DGG.--Milowent (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Drummond

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

Youth soccer player, no national competitions. Freikorp (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High school player, reported to have signed a professional contract, that's all. Maybe he will be more notable later. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth player with no notability shown, fails ATHLETE in having not played at required level, nothing GNG worthy. still a kid that may make it, but re-create if and when --ClubOranje^T 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Walker's Name Tag America

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

Unremarkable game. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam, no evidence of notability. Acroterion _(talk) 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. An affiliated external link, but no inline citations from reliable third-party sources.--Prodigy96 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]

Delete Cannot find any third-party sources for the subject to establish notability. Could also fall under something made up one day. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the lack of notability, this is supposed to be a fun game? How the other half lives, indeed..... Per all the above. Peridon (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lacks non-trivial coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weather forecast Anyone else think there's a possibility of SNOW? Peridon (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a made-up game have submitted for Trademark it will be released and packaged as game in 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiscaverly (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's not released it comes underWP:CRYSTAL. Having a trademark doesn't indicate notability - just that someone has registered a trademark for something that may never even reach the market. And I can't see a market for this to need a trademark, anyway. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:POLITICIAN. All cabinet officials are notable. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Massaquoi

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

This article is about a non-notable Liberian politician who was never elected to any office. This same stub of information is already included within Liberian general election, 2005. Onthegogo (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Automatically notable as a former agriculture minister. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former federal Minister. Thanks Eastmain for finding the sources for that and putting them in the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia – West Virginia rivalry

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

Unsourced article about a made-up rivalry. UVA and West Virginia are not and never have been rivals. The two teams have only played 23 times in their history, never more than eight years in a row, and only once since 1985. B (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced, appears to be WP:Original research if not invented. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete as not notable. "Rarely-played rivalry game" is an oxymoron. Mandsford (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. Its name is confusing, as well: if I hadn't read it, I'd think it to be something related to the creation of West Virginia in 1863. However, I believe that you can have a rarely-played rivalry game: if I remember rightly, the Chicago Cubs and the Chicago White Sox had a major rivalry in the twentieth century, although they went for several decades without playing against each other. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know enough about the VA-WV rivalry to comment on it. I was asked to comment on Cubs-Sox. They met in the 1906 World Series and started playing interleague games when the rest of MLB did so in 1997. In the 90 intervening years, the rivalry was more about North Side and South Side, as they seldom played each other, even in spring training as their camps were on opposite coasts. However, they did face each other in an exhibition "City Series" that ran off-and-on from 1903 to 1942; and from the 50s through the 70s or so they played an annual charity exhibition game. When the Sox won the 2005 World Series, the victory parade went only through the south side and stopped at the Chicago River in the downtown area. The WGN-TV announcer Dan Roan, a Cubs fan, who was covering the parade, took a mild shot at the south siders in regard to speculation about whether they would cheer the Cubs if the Cubs ever win another Series. There are also perennial complaints about which team gets "more favorable" coverage in the local newspapers. Mike Royko, who died in early 1997 and thus didn't get to see any of the meaningful games, was a loyal Cubs fan and was always poking fun at the Sox and their fans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep in mind, two cross-town teams in a league of 30 teams are going to be far more closely related than two teams 5 hours apart in a league of 120 teams. Heck, until the interstate to Morgantown (I forget - I-68?) was built 20 years or so ago, it was further than that. There are ten teams that are closer geographically to UVA than WVU and plenty of them that they have played more often. You can certainly have rivalries where the series is on hold (eg, VT-WVU, Pitt-PSU, BC-Syracuse, etc) and you can have hostile fanbases that don't like each other, but the teams rarely/never actually meet on the field (VT-Tennessee), but WVU-UVA is neither of those. A game between UVA and WVU would interest neither fanbase any more than any other game against any other equity conference opponent would interest them. WVU would care just as much about playing UVA as they would about playing UNC, Mississippi, Indiana, WFU, or any other middle-of-the-road BCS team. The same goes for UVA. They just aren't rivals. --B (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, per User:B. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? B wants the article to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Titus

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

Autobiography of unremarkable photographer. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination, this article is full of autobiographical fluff while yielding little information of the notability of the subject. In the absence of any quality, independent documentation, I must conclude that the subject is indeed not notable. TheMindsEye (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure whether this is autobiographical, though the combination of biographical information with lack of sources for this does suggest it. Amid a lot of fluff hinting at notability there's no mention of substantial exhibition or publication, let alone critical commentary. And so, delete. -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The technique is recent, the subject is presumably active currently, so FUTON bias unlikely to be prevalent. No significant third-party references in web, books, or news archives. ^Bongo_matic 06:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Studios Entertainment

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

Not a notable production company. Based in Albany, shows the company produces are seen on the local public access station there. All references lead back to the production company or shows website. Nothing on Google but those. Fails WP:N. NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had PRODded this article with the remark, "I can find no significant coverage for this company, but it appears to be related to the articles discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Steve Will and WP:Articles for deletion/Leader Of 3. Not a notable production company." I stand by that. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this in Google and Google News. I found zero sources in Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UncleBobby629 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)This company is not notable.--UncleBobby629 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taman Skudai Indah

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

Technical nomination only. Original nominator's rationale:

Looks more like an advertisement, insignificant, stubby article --Rochelimit (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is just a subdivision without any sense of being a community, it is probably not notable. If this is a village, it probably is. Being "stubby" is not a valid rationale for deletion.- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems no more than a housing development, without any independent existence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herrmann Ultrasonics, Inc.

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

Very little indication of notability as demonstrated by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Rd232 ^talk 09:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added some references. I think the article should be moved to Herrmann Ultraschall, the German parent company, since most of the references are about the company as a whole rather than its US subsidiary. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per Eastmain. Also needs some trimming of promotional language. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there a complete absence of significant coverage to provide evidence of notability. All of the sources cited in this article are rountine announcements relating to the company's products, trade awards and factories. Self-promotion is not evidence of notability; there must be significant coverage that the company is notable in accordance with WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've rigorously searched, and can't find any nontrivial coverage of "Herrmann Ultrasonics", "Herrmann Ultraschalltechnik" or "Herrmann Ultraschal". The vast majority of Google News hits are press releases. The awards are sourced to the company's website, and are so minor that even the trade magazines don't report on it. One exception is the "helped {some other person/company} win the German Packaging award". This means nothing, as notability is not inherited, and also shows that the company has never won the German Packaging award itself. Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the company profile on Manta [29] indicates that this is a small company with about 20-50 employees and an annual turnover of a few million dollars. Unless a company like that manages to attract a lot of independent coverage, it is likely to be insignificant. For once, I agree with Gavin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of audio trackers

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

Unreferenced and apparently indiscriminate list. Most of the entries have no article here, and likely will never have one. WP:NOTDIR. We already have a reasonable article of tracker (music software) discussing the more notable ones. Pcap ping 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this indiscriminate directory listing for crying out loud. I totally missed this one somehow. JBsupreme (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should improved though, with additional on each items' features, and restricted to bluelinks and redlinks, so that it meets wp:standalone ¨¨ victor falk 06:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no rule that every element of a list should have its own article. Wikipedia is THE place where lists are made most efficiently. No scholar can find all the data, only international community. Alone Coder (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, remove non-notable entries by normal editing. Polarpanda (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arezki Daoud

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

Non-notable publisher of recently (1996) created online newspaper. Sources are a blog and his corporate websites. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep for now. Article was just created, Jan 25. Needs lots of work, yet there is the one reliable source, North African Journal. I don't know much on the region, but the source seems reliable. If I am shown otherwise I can change my vote. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is the editor of the North African Journal and owns it with his corporation. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Great vetting process guys. I am surprised of the quality of the editing. Good job. I agree with WildHorsesPulled.. more work needed. So I added references from academic (Global Journalist, Missouri School of Journalism/Freedom House), Think Tanks (Center for Strategic and International Studies), media references have been embeded in the edit, though not sure they fully meet publishing guidelines. The North Africa Journal has 14 years of Daoud's writing but I probably cannot share given your guidelines? Is there anything specific that needs to be added? I am looking at this entry, should we post an exact replica of this: Dave Edge. Would this format satisfy your requirements? The personal blog can be removed, but the Journal's site is critical. MBsianz, North Africa Journal is not a corporation. A corporation is a specific legal status that does not apply to The North Africa Journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeni (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Folks.. how do we move forward now? Is this deletion note perpetual? I mean are all entry targted by one editor doomed to never make it? Please let us what's missing here and we will supply. Otherwise, please make a speedy decision. If you don;t like, we have delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazeni (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a week is usually allowed for discussion about the possible deletion an article. At the end of that time, someone who was not part of the discussion will review the discussion and decide if a consensus was reached. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - does not begin to show verifiable references. With the exception of one interview, all the references are either from a source owned by or the article is written by Daoud himself. Comparing this to the David Wedge article is apples and oranges - the references for Wedge are all from independent, reliable sources. If the article can be reworked to show that type of sources, it may be sufficiently notable to keep. (GregJackP (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied per author request and WP:AGF, there being no content which would prevent its userfication nor policy rationale prohibiting it (i.e. WP:BLP). Article moved to User:Zwickertara/Earth, Inc. (book), and User:Zwickertara is cautioned that userfication isn't for holding, but for article improvement - it can't sit there forever. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Earth, Inc."

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

Non-notable book. PROD removed by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails notability, appears to be self promotion. JBsupreme (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly userfy:WP:N, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL. Google shows no signs of notability for the subject as the book has not yet been released to the public. The article can be recreated when this publication gets significantly covered by reliable outside sources. — Rankiri (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The book hasn't been published yet, but is likely to be notable when it is, based on the publisher's reputation and the subject matter. The reference to the book's author, Gregory Unruh, here suggests that he is probably notable as well. So perhaps the article could be moved to the incubator or somewhere else so that it could be revisited once the book is published (April 2010, according to the article) and reviews of the book are available. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage in Google. I found zero souces in Google News. Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Userfy as below The author has no article, the book has not been published yet (it appears to have been delayed from 2009 according to the publication date here), no other relevant Google Books or Scholar results; No relevant Google News results. All other mentions appear to be advance reviews or from shops which will be stocking it. I don't see that at the moment it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books) - specifically with regard to the fact that the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right (in "Not yet published books" in that guideline). Perhaps when it has been published, it might meet WP:N but at the moment it does not. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept, it will need to be moved to Earth, Inc. (without the quotation marks) as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Article title format -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it might be best to use the title Earth, Inc. (book) as there is already Earth Inc. which might be confusing! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator has asked for this to be userfied (after I gave it as a possible solution) - see here. They feel that suitable references will be available in a few weeks. I cannot see anything too out of line to allow this to happen (although I will advise them to make it less advert-like!), so I am going to be bold and move it, and then request that the redirect page is deleted. When I've done that, I will come back here and close this discussion with the result "userfied". I won't do this until 20:00UTC (in about an hour and a quarter), so if anyone has any objections, could they let me know here? Thanks -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approve I believe this is a satisfactory outcome. It's not clear that the book will ever achieve notability, as the author does not appear to have, but the future will tell about that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per Phantomsteve's suggestion. – ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete The book is not notable & nothing notable comes up on google userifying the page may only be a waste of space and would eventually be nominated for an MFD ,it would be better if the creator of that article saves a copy of the article on his hard drive and restores it if it ever becoms notable--NotedGrant Talk 19:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there has been a further 'delete', I will not move the article to user space. Closing admin: should you choose to userfy the article, could you move it to User:Zwickertara/Earth, Inc. (book) (or something similar) to remove the quotation marks and let the creator (Zwickertata) know? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per the consensus below. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Redfield (Character)

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

An article copy-pasted from http://residentevil.wikia.com/Claire_Redfield

Non-notable, unsourced video game character.

NB: there is also another article under a redirect at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claire_Redfield&oldid=341298832 That article was redirected long ago and was briefly restored recently. The two editors involved are acting quite similar, IMO ;)

I'd be all for disinterring the redirected article and discussing them both here.

*Delete.* If kept as redirect, a history merge may be in order.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to have been properly sourced when it was copypasta'd from wikia - ~~so speedy delete as WP:CSD#G12. I would do this myself, but maybe I missed something?~~ –xeno^talk 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably no longer a good speedy candidate, but some type of attribution is required here. –xeno^talk 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as insanely notable protagonist from multiple films, games, action figures, top ten lists, etc. I have been working on the character articles from this franchise with another user as discussed at User talk:A Nobody/Archive 26#Resident Evil and have merged some of our efforts from userspace to this article, i.e. it is no longer a mere copy of the Wikia article and by contrast include numerous references from reliable sources noting the character's significance. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which criterion for speedy keep does this meet? I don't think this is a bad-faith nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with any knowledge of works of fiction and especially video games would know this character is notable. Anyone, even someone ignorant of fiction and video games, who did even remedial research on Google would see as much. Claire appears as the playable protagonist in three major video games: Resident Evil 2 (second best selling game in the hugely influential franchise with nearly five million copies sold), Resident Evil Code Veronica (a multi-system game), and the recent Resident Evil The Darkside Chronicles; TWO theatrically releaed live action movies; one animated DVD feature length movie; and once again over 50 Google Books hits confirm as much. She also appears as the protagonist in novelizations of the games/films and as multiple action figures as confirmed at amazon.com. A character familiar to millions of people around the world in the form of being a protagonist in what is unquestionably one of the top five most important survival horror franchises in history, having a major role in three films, appearing in novels, and as multiple action figures and when all of this is verified through dozens of reliable sources is notable by any reasonable definition of the term. Most importantly as far as why I would say "speedy" is that finding sources does not require going to the ends of the earth. Thus, declaring the subject "non-notable" is flat-out dishonest. Trying to delete something that is obviously improveable instead of following WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE is just plain lazy and inconsiderate. Deletion is an extreme last resort for that which absolutely cannot be improved, not for something that takes all of two minutes to confirm that secondary sources in books and magazines discuss in terms of development and reception across multiples, games, films, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you've just called me ignorant, dishonest, lazy and inconsiderate. Nice. Please see wp:no personal attacks. She's just a fuckin' video game character. Happy editing! Jack Merridew 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resident Evil: Degeneration, Resident Evil: Extinction, and Resident Evil: Afterlife are movies, not video games. These four action figures are not video games either. These novels are also not video games. She is not "just a video game" character. --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a VG char that's been mass marketed. It's all ephemeral tripe. You gonna acknowledge your other comments re myself? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By dismissing a major character from three games, three films, four action figures, and two novels familiar to millions of people around the world and who appears in top ten lists as well as who is discussed in dozens of published books, you have proven my point. Yet again, once I focus on a particular area of fiction (User talk:A Nobody/Archive 26#Resident Evil, User:A Nobody#Userfied articles to work on, User talk:A Nobody/List of decisive battles#Resident Evil chronology, User talk:A Nobody/Archive 26#RE: RE, etc.), you suddenly have to target it as seen at User talk:A Nobody/Archive 27#Orphaned non-free image File:PlayStation 2 Resident Evil 4 covers.jpg 2. See all of his article edits from 20:05 2 February through 1:26 3 February: [30]; See all of his file edits from 17:38 1 February through 1:19 3 February (those are all Resident Evil character files): [31]. And if targetting areas I am interested in despite such warnings as this is not bad enough, you bite a new editor with the “puerile shite” line here, consistent with dismissing other works of fiction as "crap". And since swearing seems the approach of the day, you post immediately below me with a declaration of "bullshit" in yet another discussion. I keep trying to ignore you and so you keep going after anything I seem interested in. Yes, I can ignore nearly all of this persistent baiting, but I am not going to stand by as an obviously improveable article concerning something verfiable through dozens of reliable sources with unquestionable real world notability from a franchise and particular character I have been working on for over a year is targetted. --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You gonna acknowledge your other comments re myself? Curious, Jack Merridew 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought I'd say this, but keep per A Nobody. Although the article still needs work, its no longer a copy-paste from Wikia, and useable sources have been included (if not properly integrated). The article needs to be moved to Claire Redfield though, there's no reason for the disambiguation. -- Sabre (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A Nobody, also nom must have missed the rather large list of links as references. Ideally they would be integrated but this makes them non-inline sourced rather than unsourced. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any issues with being overly in-universe or attribution to the other wiki are fixable. I see an article with sufficient independent sourcing to meet GNG. I do agree that a move to/history merge with Claire Redfield is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page! I have to admit that most of its stuff is from wikia, but I have spent 2 hours editing it to make it sound like it own, I have got pictures too, I am not letting Claire Lose her own page, her brother has one, why can't she! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalln (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure why. She used to have a page [32] but it was redirected to the List of characters in the Resident Evil series in July 2008. I guess there was consensus that she shouldn't have a page? There's nothing on the talk page about though, and as far as I can tell no AFD. I'll try to look into it and see what happened. Reach Out to the Truth 03:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually just one or two people decide something shouldn't exist, and they remove it without discussion. Or even if you have a discussion, and most are against a merge, they'll do anyway after arguing nonstop.[33] Dream Focus 08:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A rd is sufficient as the info can be provided there. No RS for establishing real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the umpteen IGN sources there are numerous magazine articles kicking around out there dealing with RE2 and CV. The character is a/the primary character on two major video games, has recently been featured in another game (Darkside Chronicles), has appeared in one live action film and is going to appear in another, and also stars in the CGI flick Degeneration. That's just in terms of reception, we've already got info about her character originally being this 'Elza', there are several interviews kicking around with the actress who plays her in the film. There's enough here to assert notability in terms of reception as well as enough out-of-universe info available to square up the article. Someone another 07:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gamasutra [34] states "A live action spin-offs featuring the Claire Redfield character has also been suggested". Notable enough to be considered to be the main character in a film. Google news shows results. [35]Game Zone has her on a top 10 list. Plenty of book results for her as well. Dream Focus 08:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THis looks like a standard sourced fictional character biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page! Claire Redfield is a very important Character, She is part of the story there is plenty of information on her, it will take a little bit to get it all, perhaps we can add trivia or quotes? and some more pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalln (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Smalln, but I've just removed the quotes you added, WP articles don't need trivia. As far as more images are concerned, we can't add any more than absolutely necessary because they're copyrighted and we need to assert fair use. Take a look at Nemesis (Resident Evil), which is what the article should resemble as much as possible. Someone another 16:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Someone Another, I was just trying. Anyone who wants to help form a resident Evil Force, Click here User:Smalln/ResidentEvilForce I will need some help.

Keep. I may have done much of the work for the article, but I am objective, having merged several articles that I created. It clearly demonstrates a number of reliable sources in the external link section that have yet to be properly formatted into text. Many sources have ceom from searching through only a handful of sources - ie, IGN, GamesRadar, UGO, GameDaily, etc. I have not searched Metacritic, Google News, or Google Books for information on this character yet, both of which are commonly a strong source for information on characters in my experience. No valid reason to delete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major character in several video games - has some sources --> notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claire Redfield's PAGE! I would Like to Start a Rebecca Chamber Rebecca Chambers (Character) page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalln (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonably well-referenced page. Needs some slight cleanup and incorporation of the other references.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a history merge, I started a discussion at WT:Articles for deletion/Claire Redfield (Character)#History mess. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major character in a major franchise depicted in multiple media. Edward321 (talk)
Keep, searching Google News by "Claire Redfield" "Resident Evil" yields 353 hits. Abductive (reasoning) 07:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clear keep consensus on this one.--Milowent (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K1000 PVC Rocket Motor

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

Non-notable hobbyist rocket motor. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's for use in a hobby, doesn't mean it's not notable, and it is. Hit up google, and you can find hundreds of distinct articles referencing the motor. It's new and small, but this article should have a chance at life just like Binky's parents gave him the chance at life. It should be able to be expanded.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no source, a7, no content. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iskcon Youth Services Borivali

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

Non-notable organization. Gaura79 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Gaura79 (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gaura. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Warrah (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laroo

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

Contested PROD as WP is not a dictionary; I can't determine a proper CSD criterion. Possible neologism; unreferenced so not immediately verifiable. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as I suspect this is actually an attack page. In any event, a strong, strong delete per WP:HOAX, WP:NEO, WP:V, etc. Needless to say, this is totally unverifiable, and compare the results at UrbanDictionary. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a last name; there is a jazz musician etc. with this name. Article appears to be completely bogus. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close (housekeeping), page already deleted by User:Tbsdy lives. Non-admin closure. — Glenfarclas (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ K1000

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

Non-notable musician. Musician's own myspace page is only reference provided. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Does not appear to be notable, CSD A7 should apply. JBsupreme (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – No GHITS of substance and zero GNEWS. Article lacks references. ttonyb (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - no source, a7, no content. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, an obvious case for {{db-band}}. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Patten

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

Submitting after I declined PROD, since it has already been deleted once. Concern is that this gentleman doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, with additional concerns of inadequate sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence it meets notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the human-interest piece in his town paper from his senior year in high school (cited in the article), I cannot find any coverage of Dave Patten in a reliable source. That article by itself is not enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO ("multiple non-trivial published works"). Glenfarclas (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:MUSICBIO(GregJackP (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete non notable musician, no reliable 3rd party sources, none found and the first ref [36] is a pronunciation guide for the name "Dave".—Sandahl (♀) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claes Joachim Olsson

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

Delete. Non notable biography per ONE EVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. He is only covered in news sources because he was unfortunate to be killed in action. He only has an article on Norwegian wikipedia because it is a tragedy to them. If he hadn't have died I ask, would any sources even mention a young soldier? So he was a young Norwegian soldier who happened to one of the few from his country who got killed. Tragic and newsworthy, but encyclopedia worthy? It might be different if he was a general or even an officer of some ranking who had a notable military career. But if you whittle down the condolences from various people and that he was "well liked" you are left with a non notable biography because he was only notable for one incident. He could be briefly mentioned in a Norwegian army or even Norwegian forces in Afghanistan article but this fails our biography requirements. If it doesn't then it would become acceptable to have an article on any soldier who died in a conflict regardless of ranking. Whilst there are reliable sources that exist mentioning this solider because he died, I really think this becomes invalid when it is based on One event. We are not a newspaper.

The article also claims: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said that "While we always know that this mission can be dangerous, the loss of a Norwegian soldier really into me." Really?

What I propose we do is instead create an article Norwegian forces in Afghanistan and mention the event. That would be the appropriate thing to do amidst other information on the forces in the country and history which rarely gets reported in the world press. That would be more useful to an encyclopedia. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The fact that the Norwegian Wikipedia has a long article suggests that this death is particularly significant to Norway. This may be the first Norwegian combat death in Afghanistan or something close to the first, which would suggest rather more notability than would be the case for a Canadian or British soldier killed there. I agree, however, that Norwegian forces in Afghanistan would be worth creating. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic yes, notable no. GcSwRhIc (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.
Delete, the Norwegian Wikipedia is not (and should not be) the benchmark of anything. Not a notable person; isn't more notable by representing a small country. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Telemark Battalion. Norwegian forces going to international missions are often from this battalion, the soldier is from this battalion, and our article for the Telemark Battalion isn't too long. It can handle the extra. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What "the extra"? The entire article? Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summarized version could be mentioned in Telemark Battalion. However most of the condolences are unnecessary. A brief summary of what happened, Olsson's death and prime minister comment etc is all that is needed here. As a biography, this article is way off being notable. I recommend a redirect to Telemark Battalion and a brief summary in the history. I have included a brief summary in the Telemark Battalion now which includes all of the main points. That is the way an encyclopedia should cover it... ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 23:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse User:Himalayan Explorer's moves here. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Rettetast (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a reflection on Olsson, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and as tragic as this soldier's death is, dying in combat does not make one notible according to Wikipedia policy. Rapier1 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rapier1. With no disrespect to Mr Olsson and his family, he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and there are many other instances of articles on casualties of recent wars being deleted on the same grounds. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Himalayan Explorer's edit of Telemark Battalion gives sufficient encyclopedic coverage of Olsson. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rapier1. I also support the idea of Norwegian forces in Afghanistan as a clearly notable subject, if anyone wishes to take it on. Tomas e (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordmenn_drept_i_tjeneste_under_krigen_i_Afghanistan_(2001-) Olsson was the fifth Norwegian soldier to be killed in Afghanistan. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Telemark Battalion per above or, barring that, Delete (GregJackP (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy any criteria at WP:MILPEOPLE. WWGB (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS, other guidelines, and project specific recommendations. Some of the information could be added to Telemark Battalion, but certainly not a complete merge. ^Bongo_matic 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Avril Lavigne's 4th Album

The result was speedy delete and salt, this is a clear and unambiguous WP:CSD A7. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article consists entirely of misinformation in accordance with WP:HOAX and WP:HAMMER. Currently, all verified information on the fourth album is located on the Avril Lavigne article. Any title or tracklisting exists as supposition, conjecture, or is the creation of unreliable sources. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL. Am I crazy, or was another article like this put up for deletion just last week? Umbralcorax (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:CRYSTAL and several previous AfDs (the last one of which was what Umbralcorax was alluding to). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm not as crazy as I thought. ;) Umbralcorax (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was last week's Pink Crust, and then there was "Avril Lavigne's untitled fourth studio album" that people kept CSD'ing because it kept popping back up. I didn't add a CSD template to this one because I wasn't sure how "exact" of a similar article it had to be. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could've added and let an admin figure it out. Ahh well, this debate looks like its heading in the same direction anyway. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Skomorokh 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

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

Delete. Yet another unsourced WP:BLP from 2007. There are a number of published books, yes, but what I'm not finding is non-trivial coverage of this person from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable journalist and author, ton of Google News Archive hits for the man. Rebecca (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep searching google news for his name, عبد الستار غزالي , translated courtesy of google yields 136 hits. JBsupreme (talk), you're not doing your homework. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Carthew

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

Delete. This article was tagged unsourced in January 2008, but in actuality has been unsourced since its inception, way way back in June 2007. Subject is a "film director and teacher" from Australia and somehow manages to get zero matches on Google News Archives. Seeing as this is an Australian subject, not someone from a third world country or predominantly foreign-language speaking country, one would expect to find at least some form of coverage if the subject were notable. I contend that not only does this fail the very basics of WP:BLP but WP:BIO and GNG as well. JBsupreme (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:V. The only pieces of evidence of his major award are on Wiki mirrors. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like his "most well know [sic]" film A.I.W.U. was shown at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival, but that by itself does not confer notability. I'm not finding any other significant information. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the most well known production is not so. RFerreira (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice toward recreation. Yes, his 9 minute film A.I.W.U. CAN be found, and his background as a teacher sourced, but there is not much else. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Wikipedia space; see Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of online newspaper archives

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

This article is basically a mix of improper external links and generalized listcruft. Following WP:EL, much of the scope of this article would have to be removed, since the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to lead out of Wikipedia but rather to provide an encyclopedic overview of a particular topic. This EL cleanup would leave only an unverified laundry list remaining, which is problematic in itself. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links nor should it be used as a directory for topics such as this. While this material might be acceptable at a site such as DMOZ, it is beyond this project's scope and policies. Them From Space 19:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, violates WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOT a directory. JBsupreme (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from WP:NOT concerns, can you think of how many MILLIONS of newspaper archives there are on the internet, even if you only consider the major papers such as the New York Times? There is no way that a page like this could ever work on Wikipedia.--_LittleGordon 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. And because my state wasn't listed. (joke) —Mike Allen 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I never would have found the archive I was looking for if I hadn't found this page -ZelG 13:41 2 February 2010 (MST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.141.238 (talk)

Edit Conflict See WP:NOT--Prodigy96 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my statement to ZelG (68.105.141.238) just above.--Prodigy96 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...and she listens...to the sound...of....WP:NOT!--^Trust_Me^THROW! 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting Afd this one. Just one thing Trust Me Throw, if we are talking about newspapers, wouldn't "she" read to the vision of WP:NOT instead of listen to the sound of it?--$$$BILLION DOLLARS$$$ 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Funny guy. lol :) It's a figure of speech, thus why "she" listens. And in case you are wondering the "she" is nobody in particular. Not me anyway, I am male. But I see what you mean. Again, lol :)--^Trust_Me^THROW! 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I guess this one can be closed then? JBsupreme (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! This could come in handy for research. I concur with Richard. —Mike Allen 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold. I like that.--Prodigy96 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay rosenwald

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

Blatant self-promotion. More a CV loaded with peacock terms than a bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is indeed shamelessly promotional. If the individual does meet WP:BIO (and I'm not sure he does), the article would need a complete rewrite anyway. Peacock (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia isn't the place to post your résumé. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Peacock. RFerreira (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article to be more neutral and added some references. Please check if this makes more sense now. Thank you. J.D. (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and is still spammy. The references that have been added are not sufficient - one is a self reference from his own company and the other just to FINRA's home page. There does not appear to be the required "significant coverage in reliable sources". ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I've done a small research and added several references that I believe are trusted and independent resources. Would appreciate your thoughts. If I add articles on the companies owned by Dr. Rrosenwald and link them to the person, would this be a good idea to make the article even more valuable? Thank you. J.D. (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Hawks

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

Fails WP:PROF. Entire text of article is "John Hawks was a Ph.D. student of Milford Wolpoff and is an associate professor at University of Wisconsin–Madison. He writes about human evolution at john hawks weblog, with introgression as one focus." Highest cited paper: 21. h-index is about 5. Prodded by another user, deprodded by article creator. Abductive (reasoning) 19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "john hawks" in Wikipedia gives 40 results of which over 20 places are references to this Hawks. Of these 9 articles and a number of talk pages are currently linking to the article. How is someone notable enough to be mentioned over 20 times in articles and talk pages yet not considered notable enough to have an article for those references to link to?

Please explain the meaning of "Highest cited paper: 21. h-index is about 5.". Google Scholar search gives 153 results, and examining only the first page of 10 to start, all 10 are authorship by this person and the total number of citations to the 10 papers is over 500.

Is the problem that you are searching for "John D. Hawks"? In fact the man lists his name almost everywhere as "John Hawks". John Hawks was already a redirect to John Twelve Hawks and I made it into a disambig instead of putting the article on the paleontologist at John Hawks, which is a mistake in retrospect. I've never heard of John Twelve Hawks (and I would be interested in hearing the reasoning for his notability) but at the least he normally uses his name as "John Twelve Hawks" not "John Hawks".

More qualitatively, Hawks is one of the major figures in the debates on multiregional evolution, Neanderthal evolution, rate of human evolution in current and recent times, Boskop Man, Homo floriensis, and other topics. Among nontechnical publications, he has been published in Slate magazine. Also, here is a video of him speaking at Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

The editor who originally tagged the page, apparently simply because Hawks's rank is assistant professor (interestingly a look at that editor's bio shows he is a full professor himself!), has not made any further objection or comment since I explained notability and pinged him at his talk page. User:BaronLarf for his part replied on his talk page that "User:David Eppstein added a notability template on Jan. 22; I simply added additional issues tags.", apparently disclaiming responsibility for the assertion of nonnotability, yet insisted on keeping the article tagged.

The article is still a stub, however it is properly listed as a stub in the proper subject area. Being a stub does not in itself dictate deletion as there are of course lots of stubs which are taking some time to be filled out; just check its category and parent categories.

In short this seems to me to be mechanical application of overly strict criteria. --JWB (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from the article creator. I searched by "JD Hawks", but it seems that there are more articles by "J Hawks". The additional articles bring the h-index to about 11. However, the highest cited paper has MH Wolpoff as its first author, as do many of the other papers. Eliminating those, the h is about 8. Abductive (reasoning) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, is there some threshold set for h or number of citations, and where are you computing/obtaining this index? Also, would this suggest that material on Hawks go into Milford Wolpoff instead? He is Wolpoff's intellectual heir in a sense, but is a separate individual. And should coauthored papers be counted as zero instead of some fraction? Needless to say, while the first author's fame helps bring notice to a paper, the second author has usually made major intellectual contribution. --JWB (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See h-index. Everybody who comments at these AfDs has their own standards regarding citation counts, h-indices and the letter and spirit of WP:PROF. I included the h-index numbers for their convenience. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at h-index (which ironically is itself tagged) and it says nothing about throwing out citations based on a famous first author. --JWB (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but in the AfD discussions people have made this argument. Think about it; this work is by Wolpoff, and the citations it garnered were based on his reputation and what he wrote. Abductive (reasoning) 21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases the second author does most of the work and the first author supervises and sponsors, although I certainly wouldn't assume this (or the opposite) in this case. With no specific knowledge, you are merely speculating and taking the most convenient case for your position.

I read through a good deal of the science AfD discussion list that David Eppstein linked at the bottom, and did not find any instances of this argument you are attempting to make. --JWB (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within Wikipedia, we have no way of knowing if these instances of Hawks' name were inserted in good faith, and even if they were, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. You should present evidence that Hawks is a major figure. I'll bet that other professors in the fields of "multiregional evolution, Neanderthal evolution, rate of human evolution in current and recent times, and Boskop Man" have equal or higher citation counts. Abductive (reasoning) 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is of course not a source, however consistency in what is and is not worthy of mention seems desirable. If we leave the mentions of John Hawks as redlinks what does this accomplish?

Actually examining the mentions of Hawks should give you some idea of their legitimacy.

All of those four fields mentioned are not large ones. If there are other professors well known in those fields with similar citation counts, no doubt they are likely to be notable too, so I'm not sure where that line of reasoning is supposed to lead. --JWB (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolpoff's h-index is around 31. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are proposing this as a standard. Wolpoff has been active for many decades. I think Hawks has been active for one decade. In terms of thinking about current issues in evolution Hawks is now even more visible. --JWB (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - in particular does not satisfy WP:PROF. Even for a stub there's no indication of why he's notable, e.g. what his contribution to the field of paleoanthropology is. None of being a student of someone notable, being an associate professor or having a blog count towards notability. As for publications it's usually a requirement of being an academic to regularly publish stuff that gets cited - he would an exceptional professor if he had none. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow any of the topics listed and you will find this is one of the major players. If you're unwilling to look at these fields at all, you have no basis to judge except for generalities like "no assistant professors". --JWB (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the arguments here seem to be even attempting to claim "I have a little familiarity with the evolution field and there are X number of people more prominent than Hawks". The assumption seems to be "You are presumed to be not acting in good faith, you have to prove notability to me without me knowing anything about the subject fields, dozens of existing references to the person already in Wikipedia are presumed to be spam unless you can prove otherwise, also without me having to know anything about these scientific fields, and hundreds of citations are presumed to be nonnotable, without being able to cite any specific standards, policies or statistics supporting this." This presumption of guilt is completely backwards and contrary to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. --JWB (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are all here to improve WP. No-one is accusing anyone of not acting in good faith or being guilty of anything. It is not my requirement but WP's that articles should be on notable topics, established by references to secondary sources. In particular WP cannot be used to establish notability, so wikilinks or mentions on other pages do not make him notable. As for expertise, there is no such requirement to contribute or participate, but this is about WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:PROF, not whether any particular theory of paleoanthropology is correct or being correctly represented.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, WP:CREATIVE#Failure to explain the subject's notability says: If an article does not explain the notability of its subject, try to improve it by: *Rewriting it yourself *Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources: *Look for sources yourself *Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources. --JWB (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Add something to the article beyond the two sentences that are there, make the article show notability on its face, and the chances of the article getting tagged for notability or deletion will go down. Why continue debating here rather than just fixing it?--Baron Larf 09:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Try looking for John Hawks on google. If you want to separate away from other people with similar names, then add a key word from his field like evolution. That 30 second search should be enough. He is clearly well-known and frequently cited outside of Wikipedia, including in publications that are not blogs. (A quick browse and I see Scientific American, Discover Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, MSNBC etc, and this is in addition to all the blogs which mention him and all the academic big name journals where he is mentioned. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't count. Being quoted as part of a story should be weighted less than a story about the person; for a blogging evolutionary biologist example see Massimo Pigliucci. The New York Times did an entire story on his wedding, for Pete's sake. Abductive (reasoning) 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about notoriety as a celebrity, maybe having your wedding covered counts. Needless to say this shows nothing about your contribution or significance in science. --JWB (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the New York Times covers the wedding of a scientist, but they did so because he is famous for some other reason? No. Pigliucci's citation record looks like this: 1064, 421, 191, 124, 107, 106, 104, 84, 75, 73, 65, 61, 58, 56, 55, 48, 47, 44, 40, 39, 37, 35, 35, 35, 33, 33, 33, 32, 31, 30, 24, 23, 23, 23, 22, 20, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7.... His h-index is about 30. Abductive (reasoning) 10:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you mention the wedding then? Judging from Massimo Pigliucci, he is most famous for taking on creationists, which is politics rather than producing new scientific results. His wife's fame is also covered. His actual scientific work gets a two-sentence paragraph saying only what fields he is in, and two article citations, the ones with "Phenotypic" in the names. This is about equal to what is currently in the Hawks article, or even a bit less in terms of papers with scientific results. His blog is listed as being about rationalism/secularism/fighting creationism; compare Hawks's which takes on complex specific open issues in human evolution and is the only place I've seen where these arguments are being explained to the public.

By the way, reference 1 backing up "is a professor at Stony Brook" in Massimo Pigliucci is [37] which in fact does not list him as a professor at all. Reference 2 does list him as department chair at Lehman, but in philosophy, not science. --JWB (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the Pigliucci article. AfD discussions address the potential article, not the existing article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or let's look at Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a big name in human migration. His citation record looks like this: 2658, 2410, 2070, 1782, 1072, 654, 643, 614, 612, 547, 540, 531, 485, 477, 440, 378, 341, 283, 278, 275, 268, 266, 256, 253, 252, 230, 222, 218, 214, 196, 191, 190, 187, 185, 180, 173, 166, 165, 165, 157, 152, 151, 149, 143, 140, 138, 133, 130, 126, 120, 119, 119, 117, 116, 111, 106, 105, 104, 99, 98, 95, 93, 93, 92, 91, 91, 86, 86, 84, 81, 79, 78, 78, 77, 76, 76, 75, 75, 74, 74, 74, 74, 71, 71, 71, 67, 65, 65, 64, 63, 60, 59, 58, 57, 57, 55, 55, 55, 54, 52, 52, 52, 51, 50, 50, 50, 49, 49, 49, 48, 47, 45, 45, 44, 43, 43, 43, 43, 43, 41, 41, 40, 40, 40, 39, 38, 38, 38, 37, 35, 34, 34, 34, 33, 32, 32, 32, 32, 31, 31, 31, 31, 30, 30, 30, 29, 29, 29, 28, 28, 28, 28, 28, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 26, 26, 26, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 24, 24, 24, 24, 23, 23, 23, 23, 22, 22, 22, 22, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 20, 20, 19, 19, 19, 19, 18, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 15.... His h-index is around 76. These guys are notable. Hawks is not. Abductive (reasoning) 10:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalli-Sforza is in fact the biggest name in that field by far, though more because of priority rather than because he is doing most of the current work. Again, this is a ridiculous standard. You would have Wikipedia cover only the top couple of people in a field.--JWB (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something. I wrote a comment which mentioned that this person was discussed by "Scientific American, Discover Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, MSNBC etc" and the reply which came back was "blogs don't count"? The approach being taken here turns the Wikipedia guidelines on their head by making this an argument amongst Wikipedians about how important this person is as a scientist. This is not our job. He is notable for whatever reason you like to give, and the reason is not important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this comment. Being quoted in these sources is not the same as being the subject of a secondary source. Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his blog, it is notable by WP:WEB#Criteria. --JWB (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of he criteria? At I'd guess it's 1, i.e. neither award winning or distributed in other media, in case what are multiple non-trivial works is the blog the subject of?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Andrew Lancaster said just above, "A quick browse and I see Scientific American, Discover Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, MSNBC etc" --JWB (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but as my own web searches turned up nothing please add the references to the article to establish notability. The article still has none to reliable second party sources, only a link that searches first party sources, returning results that are open to interpretation so are of limited use.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged the article for PROD two weeks ago, but User:JWB assured me that the subject was indeed notable. (There is a discussion of this here:User talk:BaronLarf#John Hawks). Despite all of the assertions and claims of notability, the article still consists of two sentences which do not show that the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:PROF. --Baron Larf 10:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the information in these two discussions (or that we can dig up now) that is judged to be appropriate and sourceable can go in the article, so please judge that set of information and help expand it. If the article is being deleted for subject nonnotability or a particular point is judged to be not appropriate, there is no point in adding it to the article. --JWB (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - if the article is improved so it clearly demonstrates the subject's notability I will be happy to support keeping it, and that's the best outcome for this AfD discussion - better than deletion or the article being kept but unimproved.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if the discussion was really about whether the article is too short, then this is true, but that does not seem to be the subject of discussion? I would imagine that no one has been working on the article, because it is being argued that it should be deleted on bases other than just being short? This discussion seems a circular and unconstructive to me. If people are worried about the article being short and saying they want to give it a chance to grow, then I think they should not be threatening to delete it for non notability?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I did not nominate this because it was too short. I remain convinced that an associate prof whose highest cited paper was written by his advisor, no awards, a low h-index, no secondary sources, etc isn't notable. Abductive (reasoning) 18:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Lancaster (in Sci Am, Discover, etc). And also per the several good external sources already in the article. The article is pretty stubby now, but that just means it needs improvement, not that the underlying person is not notable. LotLE×talk 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish the importance in a project of the professor and the graduate student or postdoc. I don;t think any general assumption can be made. The degree to which advisors typically get involved in the projects varies very greatly from advisor to advisor, and with many advisors, from project ot project. The extent to which an advisor puts his name on such papers also varies--James Watson made a point of never putting his name on. The position of authorship varies even more. To know the relative significance can often not be told from the published work; it is often necessary to know the specific situation. It's not until the assistant professor level that it becomes obvious to outsiders whether or not a former student can do important work independently. I have no idea who has the main responsibility for the idea or the execution--but I do see that it is very important work, and I think there's enough credit for both of them. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still only brings his h-index to 11. Abductive (reasoning) 04:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about his contributions to the multiregional hypothesis? Well, I went to the trouble of collecting all the citations for "multiregional hypothesis" and "multiregional origin" and got the following result. Hawks' three on the list are given in bold: 1353, 531, 433, 405, 365, 315, 272, 204, 202, 201, 184, 175, 161, 159, 156, 155, 147, 146, 136, 129, 126, 108, 104, 94, 91, 90, 88, 74, 72, 67, 67, 62, 61, 60, 58, 57, 56, 56, 53, 53, 48, 42, 42, 41, 37, 36, 35, 35, 34, 31, 30, 29, 29, 29, 29, 28, 28, 27, 25, 24, 24, 24, 24, 21, 20, 20, 18, 18, 16, 15, 15, 15, 13, 11, 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0. So there are 8,609 total citations, of which only 97 are citing Hawks. 28 papers are cited more than Hawks' highest, and that one has Wolpoff as a first author too. Or how about Homo floriensis? Hawks hasn't published any papers on H. floriensis; at least according to Google Scholar. Can User:JWB explain how s/he came to make this claim? Abductive (reasoning) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papers relevant to multiregional do not necessarily have that name. Looking at the top 10 GS results for John Hawks, several are analyses of recent African origin or "replacement theory" and mention those terms. The ones on Neandertals are relevant when they cover introgression. Actually, it appears you are missing papers where "multiregional" appears in the article text but not the title, as seen in this search. As far as prominently using the phrase "multiregional evolution" itself, Wolpoff has done this most. --JWB (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are very many physical anthropologists. A considerable number of them are notable. A few are famous. TAbductive, you cited Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He's famous. Agreed that Hawkes is not at his standard. he criterion for WP:N is notable, much less than famous. Wolof is more highly notable than Hawkes--no question about it. That does not mean that Hawkes is not notable also. The multiregional hypothesis is not exactly a recondite academic question--it is a long-standing question that has in the past been very much involved with the question of racial superiority. It is therefore of great interest, and many notable people have worked on it. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that Wolpoff coined the term "multiregional" before DNA studies provided quantitative evidence of recent African origin. Today the question is whether there is any detectable genetic inheritance from earlier Homo off the main line, which is referred to as introgression into the main line. Papers addressing the latter may or may not use the word "multiregional". --JWB (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hawks is a commentator and secondary source on the Flores hobbits story. Access to the actual fossils is limited, which is one of the issues he discusses. Abductive, recommend you read the blog if you want to be able to make an informed evaluation of his role in the listed debates. --JWB (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can blog, and I don't have to read his blog to dismiss his blog utterly. My informed evaluation is highly detailed; Wolpoff is the first author on Hawks' most highly cited papers, many people have higher citations in all of Hawks' fields. Hawks is not a full professor. Therefore he fails WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reading the long discussion on this page. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PQ Systems, Inc

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

Sham article used to promote PQ Systems, Inc, a non-notable family-run business. Edited by only two accounts: a WP:Single-purpose account Bmxoffspring99 and IP address 66.42.160.10 which was also used to edit PQ Systems, Inc.'s product CHARTrunner. DanielPenfield (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Referenced only to press releases in minor trade publications of limited interest and circulation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The WP:ADVERT tone makes it hard to find the underlying notability. There are a couple mentions in external sources given. However, I think even a rewritten version would fall slightly below WP:CORP. LotLE×talk 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article would need to be rewritten from scratch anyhow, there is no loss if we dump this. JBsupreme (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CHARTrunner

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

Sham article used to promote PQ Systems, Inc's product. Mostly edited by WP:Single-purpose accounts I like rockets and I like cheetos and Cincinnati, Ohio IPs 206.165.176.100 and 216.68.118.230 and IP address 66.42.160.10 which also extensively edited PQ Systems, Inc. DanielPenfield (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches indicate only press releases in minor trade press. The trade coverage the article itself cites is in fact co-written by a PQ Systems employee[38] as well as being of only limited circulation and interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dais Analytic Corporation

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable company. The "references" merely prove that the company exists. Fails WP:ORG, WP:RS andy (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. They produces nanotechnology polymer plastics for low-input energy solutions. They produce plastics for what, now?

This is why this sort of evasive, deceptive prose makes the veins in my forehead pop. If they described what their products were for in English, it might be possible to start looking to see if there is any substantive coverage, or suggest a page to merge this brief article into. But the use of "solution"-speak stifles further inquiry. As far as I am concerned, "solution"-speak is unambiguous advertising per se as well as a gross neutrality violation, and any article misusing the word this way ought to be deleted on sight. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Fiction

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

Four-minute short film that seems to have been created with the specific intent of entering a short film festival. The article claims no further notability to the film. The festival in which the film was entered (Newcastle Shoot Out - website) seems to be a non-notable affair and does not seem to give any awards which could qualify as "a major award for excellence" as required by criterion #3 of WP:NF. Other than the awards won at the non-notable festival, the film fails all other NF criteria. I have also been unable to find any reliable third-party coverage of the film and, thus, unable to verify that the film meets even WP:GNG. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; no outside coverage at all that I could fine. All Google hits are for a different, full-length movie of the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as R2 by Gogo Dodo. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Nelson

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

Not notable artist - no reliable sources to support inclusion. Created by User:Bhaktirasa of the same name as the artist. Wikid ^as© 18:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article has been userfied. I'll be helping the author rewrite it to bring it up to our standards.--Father Goose (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will help: FYI, when searching for this artist google "Ronnie Nelson Bhakti Rasa" or "Ronnie Bhakti Rasa" this will help bring up links Bhaktirasa (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Bob[reply]

I used the user name bhaktirasa BECAUSE it was the artists project. I do not think it's fair to judge content because I choose that name. I have also provide dozens of links and I'm in the process of providing more.

I have request the "hard" copies of the articles and request a little time to post them.... please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaktirasa (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me make this page for this artist a great page. I am working hard to gather all the information and I respect Wiki and want to make it the best it can be.

Thank you Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaktirasa (talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just received 10 articles about Ronnie Nelson and his musical projects. There are pictures of him to go with the articles from 1. the Denver Post 2. Westword magazine 3. The Rocky Mountain news 4. the Denver Post.com 5. 5280 magazine

I will scan these newspaper clippings finally proving Ronnie Nelson's notability.

Thanks for making me do this as the artist deserves the information to be collaborated.

Also, I have a request into Westword to validate that Sympathy F was indeed voted Best Of Denver by the Westword Music Showcase.

Please give me until tomorrow to scan the articles and until Friday to get the Best Of Documentation

Thank you Bhaktirasa (talk)Bob —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

FYI, when you google Ronnie Nelson Bhakti Rasa there are no less than 42 different sites within the first 5 pages,.

Please google Ronnie Nelson Bhakti Rasa notability is documented and I look forward to providing more information later today. Thank you

Bhaktirasa (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)bob[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have scanned the hard copies of the articles written on Ronnie Nelson aka Bhakti Rasa aka Sympathy F. Where do I upload the articles for verification? I do not know how to upload the articles to this section. I scanned them as individual JPGS and as a PDF. Please tell me how to do this and I will post them right away.

I also ask that the powers at be to please google Ronnie Nelson Bhakti Rasa and Sympathy F and you will find a ton of links.

Also, please look at the dozens of links I have posted. I do believe the current information I received and scanned today will resolve the notability issues.

Thanks for all your help.

Bhaktirasa (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Bob[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW or speedy keep, take your pick. Nomination has garnered no support; many !voters are finding arguments in the first AfD compelling. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Python software

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. While organized, this is still an indiscriminate list. JBsupreme (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, obviously. This nomination is just a WP:POINTy attempt at revenge by its nominator, who is going through nominating all the articles that I have worked on because of a personal dislike of me. LotLE×talk 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG at the first AFD:
As the items on the list are notable, with WP articles, and the connection with the subject of the list is clear and sourcable, the list is appropriate. The programming language something is written is is major defining characteristic.
Jarkeld (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful list, obviously appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page itself could use some sourcing improvement, but in any event I certainly agree with the DGG (talk · contribs) comment above (as quoted/cited by Jarkeld (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with sourcing comment above, but generally a useful reference list. SpecMode (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, obviously appropriate and encyclopedic list. Also, the nom notion of "indiscriminate" is unexplained. --Cyclopia^talk 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is this list discriminate beyond being "Python software" ? JBsupreme (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way is "being Python software" (and notable, perhaps, but to settle this editing is enough) not discriminate enough? --Cyclopia^talk 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm blindly hoping this is a red link: List of Perl software. JBsupreme (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is blue, instead. :) --Cyclopia ^talk 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        While I'm relieved it doesn't exist, my point is that it should not exist. What is the encyclopedic value of indiscriminately listing software by any given high-level programming language? It has been said that this is useful. How, exactly? JBsupreme (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Example: "I have heard of this programming language, Python. However, hmm, I don't know if it's suitable -for example, what notable software has been developed with it?" "Check List of Python software out for an organized list with short descriptions!" --Cyclopia ^talk 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - We may not have a list article for Perl software, but we do have Category:Perl software, and similar categories for many other programming languages. (Mind, if they're meant to be exhaustive, as this list apparently is, they're rather laughably incomplete.) —Korath (Talk) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This overwhelmingly passed AfD a year ago & nominator has not raised any new points as to why this should be deleted now. This is organized in a way a category cannot be & is just as discriminate as a category if it is cleaned up so that all list members have their own wiki articles. --Karnesky (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve with more entries: can see no grounds for deletion here. MuffledThud (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyAlbum.com

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

Notability not asserted. Article only references primary sources. Web and news search give a fair number of hits, but they seem to be mostly self-published, in particular the news hits are just company press releases in various languages. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's the original Dutch website and the article is pretty much the same. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent self-promotion if anything else. Alan - talk 02:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of the existence of this currency has been provided. No prejudice against recreation if WP:V requirements can be met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalachi

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

Verifiability concern. I can't find any evidence of this currency. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an appropriate article, such as History of Sindh; also transwikify to dictionary. In both cases, this is on the assumption that this article is verifiable and not a HOAX. Note, since this is an Urdu word, transliteration into English may result in variant spellings. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Currencies should always have their own articles. – EdvardMunch (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you take a look at the reason for this deletion nomination, you'll see that I can't find any evidence that this currency existed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. See? Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. What if I made up a currency of Ancient Mesopotamia, the "kipkol"? It would have to be deleted, because WP:V is a policy. Abductive (reasoning) 05:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep WP:POINT nomination from disruptive editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism

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

promoting the military and censorship This article completely contradicts the attitudes of Wikipedia impartial position. The whole thing stinks manipulating the American public, promoting the military and censorship. Therefore, I demand deletion. --Fredy.00 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - preposterous to delete this article, the concept is well attested to. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you give us some examples of promoting the military and censorship. Also I woud sugest that you refraphse this to be rather less confrontational. Also are you saying that this artciel breaches NPOV?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator doesn't appear to know the directions for Afd. Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may (or may not) disagree with the Afd, but I do not bleive that the users inexperiance in nominating is grounds to dismis it. Instead we should try (and I have made a right pigs ear of it myself) to nominate this crrectly and then decide on the merits of the arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Not sure where to begin. For one thing, nominator hasn't brought up a single issue that can't be resolved through editing. For another, its a term thats been in widespread usage since at least 2001, and probably could have passed the GNG back in October 2001, if not prior. And third, my Pearls Before Swine desk calender currently has a rabbit dressed as Osama Bin Laden saying "Greetings, Great Satan". Ok that last part has nothing to do with anything here. It's just a coincidence I found amusing. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder they can't find him if he's hidding in Watership Down.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, and close. Nominator gives no reasoning at all to delete the article, instead just making a ludicrous "demand". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Lorilla

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

Non-notable model/no notability asserted. No reliable sources JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 16:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I know her personally during her SINGLE days (and she got married two years ago btw), a lack of RS is what puts this down. Aside from Closeup to Fame, PNTM, and a music video by Thor, she has no other claims to fame. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No modeling work after the show. Thus, no updates for her. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Tbsdy lives. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollands Pies FC

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

Non-notable football club. Declined WP:PROD. Frank | talk 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unquestionably unnotable football club. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable six-a-side team. Move along, nothing to see here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arguably C7, nowhere in the article does it show any significance notability or importance.....because there is none to show.--ClubOranje^T 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why wasn't this a speedy delete? StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons, really: I couldn't find a policy that indicates a team needs to be professional to be notable (only athletes), and it looked like lots of effort had been put in. That doesn't mean it meets policy or is notable, but I've found that putting that much effort is either sincere or persistent. In either case, when the PROD was removed, it seemed AfD was the prudent course. Frank | talk 04:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, A7 would apply as a sporting team is an organisation ("organisation" does not mean legal entity and explicitly includes similarly informal groups such as bands) and playing in a social indoor league is not a credible claim to notability. But I don't question your decision to take this here; in my view it's the proper thing to do if there is any doubt in the nominator's mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 things, first we don't play indoor football, second, it is definately sincere and not just a wind up, far too much effort and time for that. --isitafox —Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neaate

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

Hoax: no occurrence of the name or variants in any source. The name is certainly not Greek, nor do Cycladic artifacts include such stones to my knowledge. The sources provided are entirely irrelevant to the subject. Constantine ✍ 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any sources for this topic at all. There certainly doesn't seem to be anything in the Wilamowitz paper cited as the first source, and the edition of Lycophron on my shelves contains no word resembling this. Unless something substantive and relevant is adduced, the article fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources provided are either unreliable or refer mainly to something else, and the argument that the article does not meet WP:V requirements has not been adequately dealt with. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IONA Debating Circuit

(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}}.

While trying to find WP:RS refs to improve this article, I was staggered by the fact I could find anything. The only Google hits (on the first 3 pages) are from either WP or sites that have scraped content off WP - and has the {{University debating}} template on. No hits on Goolge Books, No hits on Google News, No hits on Google Scholar. I then went and did a google on britishdebate.com for IONA - there are a number of hits all but one are with ref to fees for debates and only one that uses the phrase IONA Circuit this one. I am left to conclude that though the debates may exist, I am not sure the term or name "IONA Debating Circuit" is used outside this article. Codf1977 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even assuming it exists, doesn't pass WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:N, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This a major debating circuit involving a large number of debating competitions, many universities, and hundreds of debaters across 4 of the most successful nations in university debating. Some of the events on the circuit, such as the Oxford and Cambridge IVs and the ESU Mace, are particularly well-known and prestigious events. It may be known by different names (such as the UK and Ireland Universities Debating Circuit), but it's a very major circuit known to debaters around the world. The article alreday has quite a lot of references (although it could do with a few more to verify some of the most recent events). Hammersville (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well if it is called something else, lets get a WP:RS and rename the article accordingly. As for the references judging by the look of them - most are from Primary sources with very few beeing from what could be called WP:RS Codf1977 (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a major event, comparable to an interscholastic athletic tournament - involving major universities and multiple countries. See, for example, this, this, and this. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- You are aware that your first link is a Blogspot blog, and your other two are just copies of the Wikipedia article (as they both state at the bottom), right? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Comment - The first one is a Blog, the second one looks like some form of Social Networking site and the third is a copy of the WP page - so none of them can be used to confirm that this actually exists. Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, userfy: WP:CLUB, WP:OR. The article's sources don't establish the notability of the subject. No search results on Google News, Google Books or Google Scholar. Google Web returns 19 results, none of which give the impression of providing significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Although the article is rather lengthy, most of its contents appears to be unverifiable original research. Perhaps the article can be renamed and trimmed of WP:OR, or some of its more encyclopedic parts can be merged into another page. — Rankiri (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant third party RS establishing that this is a notable competition.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although no hits on name itself i have found articles about this not specificly mentioning it by that name. i say keep the page just rename it. also being a debater myself i know how hard debating is also i know how little respect we get.`Firl21 (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post links to those so we can know what to rename it to ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is the reason for keeping it the fact that it deserves more attention then it is getting?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-here is what i found http://hopetobreak.blogspot.com/2010/01/worlds-2010-tab-analysis-which-circuit.html http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Debate Firl21 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those - however the first is a BLOG, and the second looks like an old scraping from WP judging by the Debate Template (see here and here) in March 2008 - what we need relay is some WP:RS coverage and a link to the organisers website perhaps. Codf1977 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of the other pages on Statmaster it does indead seem as if they use Wikipedia for their pages. I agree we need a better source then these. I would also add that even if we did accept these they do not prove notability just exsistance. We also need source showing that someone actualy considers this of note, which not even the sources provided in the article seem to do (its so notable they don't even name it once).Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: ' YO YO YO good news. here are some sites i found http://hopetobreak.blogspot.com/2010/01/worlds-2010-tab-analysis-which-circuit.html http://www.freetrafficinfo.com/1031properyexchanges.com/news/World-Universities-Debating-Championship.html http://www.eudcnewcastle09.com/theteam.php "Our team cap is set at 60 (no institutional cap), open reg rules (composite and / or masters teams welcome), with a registration fee of £40 per team (may be subject to remission / discount for non-IONA teams and in cases of extreme financial hardship at institutions)." DIRECTLY REFRENCES IONA i think the page should be named World Schools Debating Championships the iona is a circut in this Firl21 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firl21 (talk • contribs)

Sorry to keep doing this - the first is a BLOG - the one for EUDC 09 where is refs IONA - is talking about fees for teams outside the geographical area (see bit in nom) and the World Schools Debating Championships is for SCHOOLS - this is for Universities.

Nothing I can find or see leads me to believe that the phrase "IONA Debating Circuit" exists in anything like an official capacity in the way the article implies - I can't find an organising committee or official website or the phrase used in any WP:RS. The issue with the artical as it stands is not only that if it's name, it is made up almost initially of un-sourced information, while University Debating is notable, and articles on say the World Championships may attract significant coverage in WP:RS to meet the WP:GNG I frankly doubt, from what I can find, that anything below that level does or will - this is after all a University Club hobby. Codf1977 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also http://www.freetrafficinfo.com/1031properyexchanges.com/news/World-Universities-Debating-Championship.html does not seem to mention IONA. http://www.eudcnewcastle09.com/theteam.php does say IONA, but it does not say IONA Debating Circuit, so all we can say is that it roves that the use of IONA exists within debating in the UK. Also (and I will again mention this point) even if we did accept these sources as proving the existane of the term, it dose not prove notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent some time looking for debating refs for other articles today - I am still unable to find any WP:RS that support this article - I am of the opinion that is article fails WP:V. Codf1977 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE : I undid this edit by Firl21 because it was inserted into the middle of someone else's comments - I have posted a note on his talk page here that I have done that. Codf1977 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Chazinator/Welcome to Feilding. Note that Chazinator has only made two edits, on February 1, and it might be better if one of the other participants adopted or otherwise kept an eye on the article. Skomorokh 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Feilding

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

I looked for and found two sources covering this film which are now used as references in the article. However, these two are pieces in a local paper from the same reporter. I'm not convinced that this is sufficient to establish the film as notable. I can find no wider coverage, nor is there evidence of significant awards or other items which may satisfy the general notability guidelines or the specific notability guidelines for film. Whpq (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Whpq (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed to Userfy per Schmidt below. It is clear from the article that this film has not been released yet - and there is no indication when or whether it ever will be. The budget is tiny and it is the first effort by this director/writer. Clearly fails the notability test. If the film eventually is released and receives some press, the article can be reposted at that time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

As the director of the film in question I fail to see what the problem is. The film is notable due to its location, age of director, camera used, budget, and soon to be discussed content. I believe the film has no relevance for USA audiences as of yet, but in New Zealand it has much relevance and therefore is notable. To delete this article is to practice censorship without merit, all because of one persons view on a foriegn film project. Ryan Freeman. Writer/Director/Producer "Welcome to Feilding" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.127.197 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, congratulations on your film and I wish you success with it and with your career. But the problem is not that the film is "foreign". This is an English-language encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia. If you can prove that the film is notable in New Zealand, that would be sufficient reason to list it here. However, please read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (films) to see what is required for a film to be listed in Wikipedia. "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a film meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. "Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a film's worth. A film may be brilliantly created and acted, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia.... A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Delete. As this film was shot only last month, it seems likely that it is not even complete yet with regard to a final cut having been prepared. I believe that the film would need to achieve some kind of release, at least to film festivals, before it could be considered notable, or at least get significant media attention beyond the locality where it was filmed. In addition, I would be reluctant to deem the film notable enough for Wikipedia without it being listed in the Internet Movie Database yet. Nevertheless, I wish the filmmaker good luck in completing his film and achieving distribution for it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to author without prejudice toward recreation, in acceptance that the filming had only recently been completed, and that additional sourcing might become available if/when the film is released and reviewed. I might also encourage the author to study WP:NF and WP:GNG so that he might better understand what merits an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Schmidt above. I would support keeping it once the movie gets some significant coverage beyond the Manawatu Standard, e.g. in NZ's major metro daily newspapers. I didn't find any in a quick Google News search. -- Avenue (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A10. The article was a word-for-word copy of Yingli. No need to merge any information, as there was no content here that was not at the original article. -- Atama頭 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yingli Green Energy Holding Company.Ltd.

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

This article is effectively an extended advertisement for the company; it cites only the company website and a reuters profile of the company as sources; it is also unclear how notable the company is as subject matter. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I totally agree that this needs a complete rewrite. I can well believe that the company is one of the largest photo-voltaic producing companies in the word as China excels is this area (rather ironic given they held up Copenhagen... but I digress), and according to Forbes their CEO, Liansheng Miao, was 173rd on the Forbes Global China Rich List and 962nd on the Forbes World's Richest People. I think that a bit of digging might show that they are indeed notable. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NoteThis article appears to be a near duplicate of Yingli. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, merge to Yingli and rewrite. Nice catch there Throwaway. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not much of a catch, I came across Yingli while huggling. I left a note on User_talk:靳亚杰 explaining the issues with the article, and noticed that they had created the article in question. I've reported the user to WP:COIN, as it appears fairly obvious that they are an agent of Yingli. We'll see what happens over there. While I don't suspect the user will be helping us with the rewrite, there are a plethora of news articles on the company listed here. I would be more than happy to assist in cleaning it up. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, in that case I have no objection to keeping the article then.... I listed it for deletion primarily because it was created as a promo and, if a grace period were given to the creator to modify the material, I felt that unlikely to happen (as the creator is clearly an employee of the company). Familiae Watt§ (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I CSD'd it for the same reasons. I'm thinking we merge this with Yingli, and I'll get cracking on the rewrite. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, their company name (and website) is Yingli Solar. Should we creat a new page and merge both articles to Yingli Solar?
        Wait, wtf? Yingli Solar is already created, and yet another duplicate. This is messy. I suggest Yingli Solar be the main page and the others deleted as duplicates, or better yet replaced with redirects. Are there any other permutations out there? Throwaway85 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, redirects will have to be used otherwise the employee will probably just come back and create the page all over again. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tubz

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

The subject of this article appears not to meet the General Notability Guidline. Only Google results are first-party or contact details, and there's nothing on Google News. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When searching google. Keyword "Tubz" -wikipedia On the first page that comes up you find Tubz on the following pages:

www.ilovetubz.com
www.tubzvending.com
www.tubz.org
www.tubzbrands.co.uk/acatalog/About_Tubz.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTubz (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 February 2010

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itzel Figueroa

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

Non-notable person. Claims of notability amount to winning a "singing contest" which, according to this source was really a random chance sweepstakes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable, and the article makes all kinds of unsupportable claims. "Itzel is an idol to kids for all ages" etc. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete as per Wikidan 61. Unsupportable claims should be stricken in the interim. RFerreira (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most substantial coverage I could find was this (Google Translate here). Unfortunately, the Build-a-Bear contest is not "a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award," and there's nothing else about her that could meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G3 by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wirieg's Problem

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wirieg's Problem

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

Seems WP:MADEUP. No Google hits at all for "Wirieg Azqud" or "KWOWUSRDGD". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete blatant hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as blatant hoax. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Fisher Athletic F.C.. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Powell

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as this is not at a professional level; may also be covered by WP:ONEVENT. Whilst a full time appointment would probably make Powell notable as the first female manager of a senior level men's football club in England, despite not otherwise covering WP:ATHLETE. As well as this, the accuracy of the reports could be questioned: it is under a rather tortuous definition that allows us to describe her as 'first female manager' anyway: at what level of football do we stop counting; and was her position actually manager or was this a PR descritpion? Anyway, don't think this deserves an article. Pretty Green (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment her claim to be the first female manager is debatable anyway - this says that Droylsden F.C. appointed two female co-managers for one match as some form of protest nine years earlier..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As insignificant as her reign was, being the first woman to (solely?) manage an English football team is notable in itself. WP:BLP1E specifically states that if a person is not notable, her name should redirect to the event article. I somewhat doubt that creating First woman to manage an English men's football team or Fisher Athletic vs Eastleigh (2008–09) would be helpful. WFCforLife (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'd even question whether she can claim to have solely managed the team as, from what I recall seeing in The Non-League Paper at the time, the club's "actual" manager, Dave Mehmet, was in the technical area with her during the game..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there is a question here of whether this constitutes management - could she have hired a player for example? However, I left this out of the nomination because it brings up fairly complex issues - was she a manager simply because of the common media description, or do we follow some other technical definition (into which she probably wouldn't fit)? --Pretty Green (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Media reports make it clear that what she got in exchange for her five hundred quid was the chance to pick the team for one match and "manage" them in the sense of shouting tactics from the sidelines, she certainly wasn't given the power to sign players or make any significant decisions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fisher Athletic F.C. where her 15 minutes is adequately covered. Maybe if her tenure was permanent and maybe if she managed a professional team then maybe she would pass WP:ONEEVENT and WP:TEMP. Next we will have the first permanent female manager, then we will have the first female manager of a professional league team, then we will have the first permanent female manager of a professional league team (finally one that at least passes ATHLETE).... then we will have the first one to manage a Welsh team, then the first to manage a French team....--ClubOranje^T 08:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A temporary manager of a professional league team would pass WP:ATHLETE, although ATHLETE is about as useful a guide as the direction my toenails point in. I think she's more notable than a player whose sole professional appearance came as a 91st minute substitute in the paint pot. WFCforLife (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fisher Athletic F.C.: The main Fisher Athletic article has a paragraph containing all the details about this that are ever likely to be published, and there is little chance of any more sources providing enough information on Donna Powell for her article to be expanded beyond a rather vague stub. What is there at the moment adds nothing beyond what is already in the Fisher Athletic article. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fisher Athletic F.C. as per Gasheadsteve's excellent logic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per gasheadsteve. My opinion was that she warranted coverage on wikipedia- that's clearly the best way. WFCforLife (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Yoga

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

Was originally speedied, but as it's appearing in the Yoga template I think I'd better be safe and take this to AFD. Is this form of Yoga notable? Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Yoga template is being revised and corrected by me, even before this tag was put on it. You will see a lot of self-made yoga systems in the template. It will be cleared after the discussion over the Yoga template is over. The article needs to be deleted since it is completely written for advertisement purposes. It is notable only in the eyes of the students who have created and added to the article. Request you to delete it with the speedy way. Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 12:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not entirely certain that the article qualifies for Speedy Deletion as promotion, but it's definitely promotional. I removed the verbatim copy of the sport's rules, which are likely copyvio. Many of the refs are bare links to websites, rather than specific links to specific articles or sources, so the bulk of the article is unsourced. So, lacking proper sources that show notability, we can't really keep the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely promotional for advertisement purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven J. Rosen

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

Fails WP:BIO Defender of torch (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Del.--Saki ^talk 11:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep well published and reviewed author. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some reliable sources which has non-trivial coverage of the person. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are a few links... [39], [40], [41], and [42]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, The Journal of Vaishnava Studies, an academic journal, was founded by Steven J. Rosen. Presently, he is one of two senior editors, along with Graham Schweig. [43] Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This author's books have been published by; Continuum International Publishing Group, Munshiram Manoharlal, Motilal Banarsidass, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, Lantern Books, and Greenwood Publishing Group... Gita on the Green: The Mystical Tradition Behind Bagger Vance, was published by Continuum International Publishing Group ISBN 082641365X. The text was reviewed by Yoga Journal [44] and cited in many other works; [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], and [50]. The text Holy War: Violence and the Bhagavad Gita, Deepak Heritage Books, ISBN 0937194441, was reviewed by Yoga Journal [51], and cited; [52], [53], [54], and [55] are some examples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: author of many scholarly books related to Hinduism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The best GS cite I can find is 5. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep per Ism Schism (especially additional sources in comment above). LotLE×talk 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

David Mertz

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view 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 speedy keep according to reliable sources he meets the criteria for footballers. Non-admin closure. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Nicastro

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

The article was prodded (by myself) with following rationale: The subject didn't play for the first team of Calcio Catania, and he didn't play for a fully professional club before that. Francesco Nicastro fails notability criteria for footballers. The article's creator removed the prod template with explanation on Talk:Francesco Nicastro. However, my concerns are still valid, I can't find any evidence confirming notability needed for footballers. Vejvančický (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "didn't"? - the guy is still a teenager. It says he has competed in the Coppa Italia, last week, if not yet in a Serie A match. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John, read the article and the link supporting the fact correctly. He was listed among substitutes, but it doesn't look that he really appeared in the game. Could you add any evidence confirming his appearance in Coppa Italia or Serie A? I know that he's a teenager, and I know what this article says.--Vejvančický (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finally I found the evidence. He substituted for Gianvito Plasmati in 57'. [56], [57]. Sorry for wasting your time.--Vejvančický (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ervin

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

Delete. Notability seems dubious here, and this article has gone on unsourced for four years now. I don't believe that being part of a large animation team provides for individual notability. JBsupreme (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE, though the external link gives sourcing. Johnbod (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Appears as if Ervin was selected director as part of a policy to give creative experience to animators working on those shows. It is as if these directorships are part of Ervin's training, his schooling. If Ervin steps out and helms a major project, putting his stamp on it, he will be notable. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. But far more notable than Peter Hudecki, who for some reason keeps sticking around, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hudecki (2nd nomination). THF (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Personally, I think being a director for several years on one of the most successful television shows of all time, as well as being a director for another well-known show, is enough notability. However, I was unable to find much in the way of sources about him. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mark Ervin's service to The Simpsons is a good enough argument to Keep his article but not only has he worked for Futurama but has also worked in many other numerous T.V. Shows, Movies and other events for him to be notable enough for a definite keep.Azorrez (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep. I think that Mark Ervin should stay on Wikipedia because simply that he is very notable. Personally I think that less notable people, places and events should be included in all parts of Wikipedia. Mark Ervin isn't some Self-Director of his own short films which he makes at his house and posts on YouTube and he should be recognized for what he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombuk1 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A86 (software)

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

It would be advisable to do the following google search for A86. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This x86 assembler has fewer references than Open Watcom Assembler, itself at AfD. The only independent source here (Hyde's web site) is used in that other article too, so if it's inadequate there, then so it is here. Pcap ping 09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is older software, so not as well covered by online sources. But it is historically well known, and sources online still exist, such as: [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]; etc. LotLE×talk 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a86 is not at all well covered by sources, but given that it's covered in the x86 Assembly Language FAQ, it's definitely notable, if no longer widely used. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, pending a flag for expert attention and probably look for a place to merge this too. Software from the 1980s and early 1990s may well be reliably sourced to old FAQ documents and other self-published and semi-informal sources. Not sure that we need a separate article for each such package that exists. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Computers have been around for decades. Books have been around even longer. If the only sources available are coming from school websites and faqs.org then I'm not convinced of the notability here. JBsupreme (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... so by this reasoning would we delete Windows 1.0? What about MS-DOS? Just a thought. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know that we would not, because there is ample sourcing available for both. JBsupreme (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But wouldn't you consider that the links provided are adequate sourcing? I am familiar with a few of them, in particular the alt.lang.asm FAQ, which is widely cited and respected. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Few online resources exist for it because it was popular before the Internet use was common. It does have a few book/magazine mentions. It's worth improving. rCX (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (1904 automobile)

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

I believe this is one of the earliest three wheeled cars that was produced. However, it was added as a speedy deletion. Sending this to AFD for discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- I have been unable to find much in the way of sources. This is all I could find; it seems to be the entire basis for the article but it's not even clear if Aurora was the name of the car or the company that manufactured it, or both. In any case, it seems to be a rather obscure automobile manufacturer with no real importance in automotive history. I am more than happy to reevaluate my vote if more sources come to light. Reyk _YO! 10:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this truly is one of the earliest three wheeled cars to be produced/mass produced there might be something here, but from what I can tell so far things are too muddy to sustain an article. JBsupreme (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it existed it is notable, at that date, & it seems clear from Google books etc that it did. Article has been here since 2004. What on earth does "muddy" mean? Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I can't even confirm that it actually existed, so I think we should at least find a way to check one single fact in this article before we decide to keep it. — Rankiri (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It gets a hit on this book [65] which I can't open. What offline sources have you consulted? How much online coverage can one expect for this? Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy means it is difficult to find sources and the one inaccessible book may or may not be about this subject. That's muddy, is it not? JBsupreme (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:V and WP:N, perpetual stub. In this particular AfD, my main concern is verifiability, not notability. I don't expect the online coverage to be extensive, but considering that Google Books already contains hundreds of books on historical automobiles, I do expect to see at least one minor reference that can confirm any of the facts contained in the article. So, the article is unsourced. I checked multiple car encyclopedias on Google Books. None of them mentions the car described by the article, not even such seemingly comprehensive publications like The Complete Catalogue of British Cars or The New Encyclopedia of Motorcars, 1885 to the present. Amazon's Complete Catalog of British Cars, 1895-1975 (Reference) (you may need a registered account for book searching rights) also returns no search results for "Aurora". The inaccessible book shouldn't be considered a de facto source as we have no way of telling whether it refers to any of the products made by unrelated Aurora Motor Manufacturing and Aurora Automobile Machinery companies. — Rankiri (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot built a three wheeled self propelled car in 1771, I can't get too excited about one supposedly built in 1904, especially when verification of it is so hard to find, and notability is generally not shown. Edison (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I CSD'd this mostly due to WP:N, but also due to lack of sources (tagged WP:CS since Dec 08) -TinGrin 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge, redirect, merging partial material, etc, can be discussed in an editorial capacity at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Watcom Assembler

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

Two editors, User:Hutch48 and User:Doktorspin, have expressed concern on the talk page that the sourcing for this article is inadequate, so a discussion of notability seems necessary. Pcap ping 08:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Open Watcom Assembler was very influential, and certainly important enough to warrant an article. The existing references are enough to establish that there is sufficient notability to justify the existence of the present stub article. The references are not as good as one would like, so it is to be hoped that better can be found, but that does not justify deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the fact that I didn't believe that JASWM was notable enough (yet) for an article, the Open Watcom Compiler is definitely a notable assembler. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Save for Pcap, the nominator, I have notified all of the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM about this AfD. ~~Having reviewed the sources in the article, I believe that the Open Watcom Assembler has received enough coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Keep.~~ Cunard (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're risking sanction by doing this, Cunard. Not by me, however. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - C'mon. Cunard's notices were neutrally phrased, relevant, and appropriate for a group of editors who had relevant knowledge and interest. As long as s/he notified everybody involved (I did not check to verify this), this is not only allowable, but eminently worthy of praise. LotLE×talk 10:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You'd think, huh? But I got a block for this same thing in '07. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am one of the editors notified by Cunard. This is perfectly in line with process for WP:AFD in which interested editors are notified. It seems quite reasonable to assume that editors who took an interest in the deletion discussion for JWASM which resulted in a redirect to Open Watcom Assembler would also be interested if this article were nominated for deletion. The notfication was completely neutral in tone and neither advocates for keeping the article, nor deleting the article. This isn't canvassing. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tbsdy lives' concerns stemmed from a block he received for a series of edits that was incorrectly deemed to be canvassing. See our discussion here. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have withdrawn my "keep" vote and have voted "delete" below. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hold a value judgement at the moment, I don't like the idea of deleting technical pages but it seems to get done here. To try and help out with the so far incorrect technical documentation placed on the page, I suggest that it be done in 2 stages, demonstrate that Open Watcom is notable THEN prove that WASM is a component of Open Watcom. Here are some link to help out with the demonstration that Open Watcom is notable and reviewed by independent third party reviewers.
"Open Watcom" free compiler looking for AMD64 help http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1018187/open-watcom-free-compiler-looking-for-amd64-help

Open Watcom C/C 1.4 http://download.cnet.com/Open-Watcom-C-C/3000-2069_4-10186374.html

Open Watcom 1.7a Details http://download.famouswhy.com/open_watcom/

The Open Watcom Compiler http://sitereview.org/?article=463

Open Watcom Reflections http://owreflections.blogspot.com/2008/09/open-watcom-18-and-c.html

Open Watcom C/C http://www.zdnetasia.com/downloads/pc/swinfo/0,39043052,50002392r-39197100s,00.htm

Professional, optimizing, multi-platform C and C compiler with a comprehensive suite of development tools http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Coding-languages-Compilers/Open-Watcom.shtml

If the consensus is that links of this type show that Open Watcom is notable then there is little point to continuing this debate. Hutch48 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge (some of) the material from the redirected JWASM back into this article. I almost feel like this is Speedy keep, since it follows immediately on the redirect decision from the other AfD, and hence verges on WP:POINTy. LotLE×talk 09:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to a speedy keep, you are making an assumption that this was submitted in bad faith, which it was not. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone added the reference by Randy Hyde, there is now at least one decent piece of reference material on the page, the other stuff should go and appropriate reference material should be added. Hutch48 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. That is pretty much as strong and verifiable a reference as you will ever get for an assembler. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. I thought this should be notable, it sounds familiar to me. I searched Google Books and could only find one match? The sources, well, I should say links listed above are mostly just download links and such, but how does this illustrate notability? I suppose I'll just wait for Pcap to chime back in, because to be honest, I'm not seeing it right now, and I'm kind of surprised. JBsupreme (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An Amazon.com search will not show anything because Hyde publishes his books for free, in PDF form. ~~I'm a little concerned now... it appears that A86 has been listed?~~ Striking as this looks like I'm questioning the motives of the lister of the A86 deletion discussion, which I'm not. That's definitely notable. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure about this particular article, but I strongly object to the idea of moving any information back to the JWASM article. That article should stay as a redirect. Them From Space 11:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It was established in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM that Open Watcom Assembler was notable. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeDog, your comment is not consistent with the activities in the JWASM AfD and to protect this page from further deletion attempts the whole idea of this discussion was to establish notability for WASM rather than assuming it and not providing the reference and review data for it. The review by Randy Hyde is a good start, the links to reviews of Open Watcom add some more weight to retaining WASM but decent reference material is still needed to ensure it is not the target of another deletion attempt. Hutch48 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nominator has failed to express a valid reason for deletion. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This article fulfills the general guideline for notability by having significant coverage in independent reliable sources per the references already given in the article. -- Atama頭 17:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the sources currently cited really meet our definition of reliable sources as per WP:RS? I remain skeptical, especially of the last source which is "Best viewed without a GRIZZLY BEAR in your pocket." [66] JBsupreme (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - You made a good point. I admit I didn't look closely at the sources, slap me with a fish. I do think the first reference is good, but the others are the equivalent of personal blogs. One other good source would convince me to keep, but for now I'm not satisfied. -- Atama頭 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rather surprising, although that is a WP:SPS, it's also a WP:RS because of the numerous academic citations it gets; see these searches: [67] [68] [69]. Almost certainly has more citations than any of the other sources used in this article. Also, Fog has previously published in Dr. Dobb's on this topic, so he meets the exact letter of WP:SPS too. Fog's work was contested on the talk page because it's not an "assembler review", and the coverage there is rather brief: Pcap ping 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

WASM

The WASM assembler is included with the Open Watcom C compiler. The syntax resembles MASM but is somewhat different. Not fully up to date.

JWASM

JWASM is a further development of WASM. It is fully compatible with MASM syntax, including advanced macro and high level directives. JWASM is a good choice if MASM syntax is desired.

”

Keep Meets at least the minimum notability standards for an article. Collect (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, and merge at least some of the material from JWASM into it.-gadfium 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I have abstained from !voting. I'm still in an information gathering mode here, why is it that we are being so lax on reliable sources for this one subject? I feel that there is an undisclosed WP:BIAS going on here, and I don't mean that as an assumption of bad faith, I really believe it is happening whether the people participating in this discussion realize it or not. How is the source agner.org for example considered "reliable" in the framework of Wikipedia? Ordinarily we would dismiss these types of sources and it seems we're making an exception here. Correct me if I am wrong, please. JBsupreme (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems incoherence rules this roost. Not one shred of reliable third party sourcing in this AfD and everyone is committed to keeping an article about a dysfunctional assembler about which nobody knows anything substantive other than its pedigree and that nobody has any interest in. Oh, Randy Hyde mentions it on a page in which he distributes it. That's notable... not. Notability seems to have been "established" through assumption, when you lot ditched JWASM and were trying to clean up that mess. But WASM is no more notable than JWASM. The ridiculous references supplied in the WASM article, I bothered to look up and see that they were playing the system, yet two of them have been put back,

one because it supplies a connection between Watcom and WASM and
the other because it gives info about JWASM. That sure provides rationale for maintaining WASM.

Where's the notability here? This really appears to comes down to an arbitrary pot/kettle choice. Stop all this me-tooing and provide the reliable third party sources that can make the topic of this article notable. After the song and dance over JWASM, you should at least do that. -- spin^control 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, this is a stub that none of you cares about, none will maintain or improve. The only work done on it recently was trying to clean up because of the previous mess. -- spin^control 20:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some sanity to the discussion. JBsupreme (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, I've asked for valid third party sources and no one wants to cough them up. I can't find them either. I am sure that this article will be kept (this time) under some sort of WP:IAR since everyone seems to like it (?) I don't really understand why we're totally ignoring our notability guidelines and making an exception for this one assembler. JBsupreme (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you weren't aware, the article was created in an attempt to compromise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, but the most insistent opposer there seems to have changed their mind. I really don't care if this and the JWASM redirect get deleted. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was already a WASM article, so get your facts straight. When I created the NavBox for x86 assembly topics, I included the already existent WASM (Open Watcom Assembler).

Why not be coherent rather than voting weakly to keep? Vote to delete. You know that there is no notability for WASM. -- spin^control 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know which articles I've created. The WASM page never contained anything about assemblers before I added it. The redirect WASM (software) was created after Open Watcom Assembler. Try checking facts yourself before making accusations. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't check your facts. This diff shows that the Watcom Assembler was added to Comparison of assemblers 15:29, 2 May 2008 with an article name "WASM" and the information "Sybase Open Watcom Public License" and changed 23:06, 31 August 2008 to WASM (software). I don't know exactly what sort of mess you made, but you didn't create what already existed. Interestingly Pcap aborted this WASM (software) Open Watcom Assember article, thus: 22:04, 28 January 2010 Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (The other WASM (Wolfware Assembler) is less notable and unlikely to get an article). There is a Wolfware Assembler, but certainly WASM (software) pointed to the Open Watcom Assembler, as Comparison of assemblers makes clear. -- spin^control 12:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as I already showed, "WASM" was a disambiguation page that did not include any assemblers, and "WASM (software)" did not exist until 28 January 2010, with no previous versions. It's not my fault if you didn't check what you were linking to. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply and continuingly mistaken. The Comparison of assemblers calls you mistaken, as it acknowledges WASM with link as the Sybase Watcom assembler. You're pretty safe though as the original WASM (software) page that got wiped and the history is useless. -- spin^control 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd be coherent, and !vote in the same way (towards WASM being notable) that I did in the previous Afd (unlike some). One man's !vote won't change consensus though, so don't trouble yourself about it. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Watcom C/C compiler. I agree with JBsupreme about the souring. The declarationt hat this is an important assembler isn't supported by the sources provided. For example, what at first glance would appear to be substantial is the Leiterman book which has a chapter title of "MASM vs. NASM vs. TASM vs. WASM". But upon closer inspection, the chapter title is rather whimsical and WASM is covered in a single by-the-way sentence. [70]. I just don't see the sourcing that establishes this as independently notable. It can be mentioned to be part of the Watcom C/C compiler distribution, so a merge rather than outright deletion seems reasonable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who Cares, In its current state, the article is barely even mentioned in technical data, independent review or reference apart from the single review by Randy Hyde which is reasonable and its best chance of survival is simply that its a part of the Open Watcom project. It has a very limited history in use as it was always overshadowed by both Microsoft Assembler and the Borland Turbo Assembler and it never had any reference material of its own, it depended on Microsoft MASM literature from MASM 5.0 and 6.0. The choices are this, merge it into Open Watcom as a mention that it existed OR change the criterion and suppliment the article with the later Open Watcom software JWASM but as it has already been rejected by a previous AfD there is little else to do than dump it as a one liner in Open Watcom. As it is no-one will maintain it as no-one uses it and if it lingers on in this form, it will be the target for a future deletion. Hutch48 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that WASM's only claim to fame is that it is the ancestor to JWASM, whose article was found not to be notable. All this keeping (without any serious third party sources) seems to be pure hypocrisy.

I haven't voted in this AfD and I believe it is wrong for anyone who voted in the JWASM AfD to vote here through conflict. -- spin^control 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changed from keep. I thought that this Google Books result (titled "MASM vs. NASM vs. TASM vs. WASM") provided significant coverage about WASM, but after scrolling through the next fifteen pages I can find no such evidence. The coverage in the agner.org link is insufficient because the coverage about the Open Watcom Assembler is trivial. None of the sources provided by Hutch48 at 09:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC) suffice. Most of them are download sites. The sole reference which appeared to be reliable is insufficient; it's tone is not neutral (EARLIER this month, the nice folks at OpenWatcom.org released version 1.4 of the Open Watcom compiler) and it is published by the tabloid newspaper The Inquirer. While Whpq (talk · contribs)'s compromise is plausible, I will not advocate a merge until notability for Watcom C/C compiler has been demonstrated. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the data on this page it looks like the trashing of JWASM has taken WASM out with it. While I doubt there are any problems in the notability of Open Watcom, I agree with an earlier post that WASM's claim to fame is it was rewritten into JWASM which has far greater support and is currently in use but as the decision has already been made on its lack of notability, that decision appears to have taken WASM out with it. I would opt for at least putting reference to WASM in an Open Watcom page as it is known as a component of the Open Watcom project. I will not vote to delete this article as I don't support trashing programming articles but unless more data is added to demonstrate is notability, I do't see a ay to justify its existence. Hutch48 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Hutch and Spin, it doesn't matter if you don't "vote", just by discussing here you are voicing your opinion. An AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Some of us just embolden things to make it easier to see the gist of what we are saying at a glance. Don't feel that you need to reply to this note. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeDog, this discussion is about deleting the WASM page, not your private hobby horse and I will add my comments here for objective editors to read with indifference to your views or advice. Feel free to tender any technical data you are competent to add to improve this conversation. Hutch48 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having re-read most of this page and the discussion page for WASM, it would appear that Pcap has some interest in maintaining this page so on the basis of the Randy Hyde review which is both competent and independent and the historical status of the Open Watcom project I have decided to support the page being kept with the provision that Pcap ping can add more data and maintain the page. It notability is still vary-order-nary but I think it just scrapes through as it has been around for a long time. Hutch48 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a volunteer here like everyone else. I'm under no obligation to maintain anything. Pcap ping 10:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is easier to pull down others' work than it is to construct anything. -- spin^control 11:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have no fear, no-one was trying to twist your arm, I mentioned you as you showed some interest in keeping the page and I was looking for a reason to try and support keeping the WASM page. Note that I personally work in MASM and would not waste my effort on a pile of old junk like WASM but I would not wish to deny anyone who is interested the chance to fix the page and add some useful content to it that prevented it from being deleted or just merged as an aside in Open Watcom.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Watcom C/C compiler. There are not enough sources to justify a free-standing article on this assembler. Even Randy High doesn't consider it one of the more important x86 assemblers, in his section "Which assembler is the best?" He does not include it in the main group of eleven x86 assemblers at http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/WhichAsm.html. The cited article by Agner Fog is interesting but I don't think it has much to do with this assembler. The article about WASM at http://www.openwatcom.com/index.php/Wasm is way more interesting than this one but doesn't link to any reliable sources we could use. For comparison of article quality and sourcing take a look at GNU assembler, which I think meets our standard for notability, due to the importance of the Gnu tools, although the sourcing could be better. For our general coverage of assemblers see Category:Assemblers. I don't see any problem justifying an article on the Watcom C/C compiler, and I can imagine having a sentence or two added there about this assembler. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I'd sure hope the GNU assembler meets our standard for notability; it's probably the most notable assembler out there. I wouldn't expect every assembler article to look like the one on GAS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the lack of sourcing for the article is because it written from personal knowledge. After all, the article is from the Openwatcom wiki. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, thanks for the link, it is the right type of information but with the Wikipedia criterion of external 3rd party only, useful and detailed information like this has to be ignored which says that the naive interpretation of Wikipedia notability criteria is in need of some refining. This is not the place to do it but it is a problem.Hutch48 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing, if the wiki has editorial oversight by the organization, is a primary source. Which is just fine as a reference though it doesn't count for notability. In a tech article there's nothing wrong with having say three references to independent secondary sources and the rest to primary sources or expert SPS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:despite Doktorspin's comments, I shall add my comments here, and the closing admin may give them the weight they decide they deserve. At the JWASM debate, I was persuaded that this topic was notable. Since it now appears it is not notable under wikipedia terms, but somewhere along the line the general head from which this lot sprang does appear to have notability, I think the best bet is to keep merging up the food chain. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Article has three independent sources, which meets GNG. I'd also suggest that this article shouldn't have been AFD'd as the previous merge is still being worked out, sources are still being debated, and so forth; this should have been given the customary 6-month wait before being AFD'd again. However if we lack consensus to keep, the proper alternative is to merge to Watcom. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The other AfD was for JWASM, a fork. This article was actually created during the AfD of JWASM. This article itself was never sent to AfD, so I don't see how the 6 month thing applies. The editors that wanted to keep JWASM were the ones that argued this article has insufficient sources (on its talk page), and repeatedly deleted the references as fake. Pcap ping 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that if an AFD'd article A is merged to a parent topic B, then the 6-month moratorium should apply to B as well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- And as for the three independent sources, the quality of the sourcing needs to be examined. As OI pointed out above, one appears to be a chapter at first glance is just a passing mention. - Whpq (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are legitimate concerns with the depth of coverage, I agree. That's why I started this AfD. I disagreed however on the talk page that the references are outright fake, so stripping them seemed inappropriate. Pcap ping 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't hang too much on my choice of words. I just don't think that whoever posted them looked at the references. They add no notability to the article or provide any serious third party sourcing for any content. So far, it's a contentless article apparently there to supply somewhere to house the ghost of JWASM. I think some of you are keeping this article for the wrong reasons. Forget JWASM and you'll find nothing to this article but a name without any text behind it. -- spin^control 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came across another passing reference to WASM here. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional doppelgängers

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

Delete. Trivial and unsourced list. JBsupreme (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any benefit to this list, trivial and unencyclopedic --Pretty Green (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a few of the entries are sourced. The definition of doppelganger is also stretched fairly thin - I see clones (Thomas Lincoln, et al), people at different points in their lives (as with the Valyard and the Doctor), and true doppelgangers (Bizarro, etc). The list, in its present form, is indescriminate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Terrible, just terrible. Seems to consist of nothing but synthesis and original research. Reyk _YO! 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had my bot create this list from Category:Fictional doppelgängers back in May 2007 as the result of a CFD consensus to listify the category and delete. Other than that, I have no interest in this category but I do question the article's value given its current state. RedWolf (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of clean-up on this article a year ago (which is presumably why I've been notified about it by a bot). The fact is that my cleanup though requiring considerable effort on my part made barely a dent in the article, which has gone on to acquire yet more unsourced cruft. It's time to delete it. --TS 10:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major source of the plot in many but not all of the works, and the works are notable; therefore the list is appropriate. If any of these are not prominent in the work, then of course those entries should be removed. A list of instances of a notable plot element in notable works is relevant content. The definition should probably restrict it to "A list of doppelgängers, look-alikes, and evil twins throughout literature, movies, and other forms of popular culture. " but not also "more loosely to characters intended to serve as foils to or antitheses of better known characters." This would probably remove about half the list, such as Tash/Aslan. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why this is notable as a list? Just because the list can be made, doesn't mean it should. Secondly, are doppelgangers a 'major source of the plot' in many of the works? A lot of these are obscure characters from individual episodes of long running series. There is a section on the doppelgänger article which discuses the use of doppelgangers in fiction, as a narrative tool. Why do we need a list? There is little, if any, purpose or sense in linking these various works of fiction. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being unsourced is not a criterion for deletion, and, as DGG points out, the topic is not trivial. — DroEsperanto (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ultraexactzz. RFerreira (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless substantial imrovement takes place during this AfD or someone can offer a plan for such improvement. Before anyone points me to Wikipedia:There is no deadline, which I agree with in principle, I want to point out that there is a significant difference between "there is no deadline" and "there is no deadline and the article can be improved". I removed a few entries as being examples of foils or antitheses, but I have difficulty imagining how one could adequately improve the list as a whole. Only if it can be improved (the main issue being that entries on the list must not be included on the basis of any original interpretation or synthesis of information) would I support keeping it per DGG. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go on Home British Soldiers

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

There is no justification, and no sources provided, to suggest this song is notable per WP:MUSIC. My brief search finds no evidence of notability either. Oo7565 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does seem to not be all that notable, but tehr may be more sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. As there are no !votes to keep this article, consensus is clear. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MASM32

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

I deprodded this after finding some brief mentions in books. Nominating here for a more in-depth examination of notability. Beware that this isn't just the 32-bit version of Microsoft's MASM, but a repacking thereof by an independent developer. See [71] and [72] Pcap ping 07:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 07:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The linked source (The Intel microprocessor family book) seems to factually wrong when it calls MASM32 an assembler, so it isn't too reliable. -- spin^control 23:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources linked are to the primary site, and that site is itself no longer operating. Makes notability questionable. LotLE×talk 09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The site is operating, but the administrator has blocked Wikipedia as a referrer after this AfD didn't go the way he liked. It's easily accessible if you use your address bar, rather than clicking links. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject lacks significant coverage by reliable third parties. It is nice to see people coming around at the Open Watcom Assembler deletion discussion too, I was beginning to wonder what the hell was going on today. JBsupreme (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JB, it seems the criterion on Wikipedia had changed over time, it was not that long ago that they were happy for you to research and add content but that has changed and a vast amount of material no longer meets the practical criterion for inclusion under current interpretation of notability.
Hutch48 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I meant to add this before, I neither created the article nor do I support it and while I did try and tidy it up a couple of years ago, repeated vandalism that ended up having the page locked by an administrator was a sufficient condition to fully abandon it. I raise no objection whatsoever to the deletion of the page. Hutch48 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Arnold

AfDs for this article:

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

Illustrator who apparently only received coverage for one event when he was a murder suspect. No apparent notability as an illustrator. This was kept at VFD in 2005 but I think the consensus on articles such as this has moved on somewhat since then. Michig (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. For a split second I mis-read this as Tom Arnold. JBsupreme (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed the mention of him having been a suspect in the murder, per WP:BLP, as it was unsourced. Wine Guy Talk 07:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable as an illustrator; and as for the murder, a relatively minor WP:BLP1E which doesn't appear to have gotten coverage outside of Massachusetts. The previous AfD likely suffered from recentism, as the case was ongoing at the time. The nom from the old AfD says it all: "Had he not discovered the body of Christa Worthington, he would have been forever obscure." Wine Guy Talk 08:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G11 - Promotion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.A.N MONDAYS CHERRY MARTINEZ

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

OK. I added this to my watchlist when it was created, hoping that someone else could find a suitable speedy-category. Alas, either no-one noticed, or everybody's dancing around the fire.

I find this not notable, and practically unsourced. Tell me a story... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I would have deleted it as no context, nn-bio, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant advertisement for a radio show with no notability established. JIP | Talk 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this page helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.107.169 (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article, Cherry Martinez. JBsupreme (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @083 · 00:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Key Realty School

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

Non-notable, non degree granting career school. 2 says you, says two 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are no notability requirements for educational institutions on Wikipedia.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 07:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
Delete. There is always WP:GNG. Are there multiple reliable sources that have independent in-depth reporting on this entity? And it does appear to fall in WP:CORP. The given refs and the news/books/scholar searches turn up nothing except "it exists" and similar indexing rather than actual content discussing it. DMacks (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter though, it is an educational institution, thus the notability guidelines aren't as important as with most other articles.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 11:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, anyone can set up a school and call themselves a college. When a school is for profit and doesn't grant degrees, WP:CORP applies and the school must show at least some independent notability. 2 says you, says two 19:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trade training organisations that don't offer degree courses don't have any inherent notability. I have not been able to track down any good sources that would otherwise establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @082 · 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Felix

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject doesn't appear to be particularly notable in his field. There are no references, and his 'official website' is a deadlink Oo7565 (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News throws up plenty of coverage ([73]).--Michig (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment this was up for afd last summer but no one voted so no consensus was reach. I just thought to put this up for consensus thats allOo7565 (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are references on Google.—KeptSouth (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory click on google news alone brings up multiple sources, clicking one at random brings up the BBC Website saying "The 60-year-old paranormal expert rose to international fame thanks to his appearances on Living TV's Most Haunted programme." in the article. I'd never heard of him, but then again I have no reason to have wanted to. He appears to be of interest to people with an interest in woo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amentet (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A Great Education (film)

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

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

Delete per WP:HAMMER Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly hammer, but in the same spirit. Shadowjams (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @082 · 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is consensus. Nothing worth an article. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @082 · 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Joseph Kupper

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

Article tagged as hoax on 21 January. The article makes some noble claims about the subject which are not backed up by reliable sources. I cannot find any RS in a quick search, and a couple of editors have poked holes in his story on the article talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or not, I see no assertion of notability at all. A housebuilder who had won lots of medals (or not). Johnbod (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it might be a bit unconventional, but I'd like to put this AFD on hold for a little bit. I've opened a line of communication with the United States Marine Corps History Division regarding the suspected hoax (I would be the one who tagged it, BTW, based on the concerns of Looper5920). I'd like a couple of weeks to let them do some research and see if they can find anything on this individual, because a legitimate Navy Cross recipient is almost surely notable enough for an article. If that's not reasonable, them my vote will default to delete. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the Navy Cross is enough "Since its creation (1917), it has been awarded more than 6,300 times". We have over 600 in Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross, most, but not all, of whom seem to have other claims to notability. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a Navy Cross alone (or in combination with the other medals) isn't sufficient for notability; this isn't the Medal of Honor. WP:BIO guarantees notability to those who have received major notable awards, but anyone in who is wounded or killed is awarded the Purple Heart — quite a notable award — and we don't automatically consider them notable, so we mustn't read that statement as making the Navy Cross a guarantee of notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. mainly as a copyvio, but also no sourced to verify. This deletion should not prejudice a non-copyvio recreation if reliable sources are found Scott Mac (Doc) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tasos Bougas

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

Non-notable performer, no awards or unique contributions to arts, not seeing anything big on gnews. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. There is a chance that sources might be available in another language, if they ever show up I have no problem with the article being recreated at that time. JBsupreme (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @081 · 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Has had a single or album on the Greek national music chart? The promo piece at http://domains-90.com/aumiupmp/tasos_bougas_002.htm says he has nine gold albums on his wall, which would make him notable under WP:ENT if true. Is there a reliable published source for that? --Bejnar (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has nine gold albums. – EdvardMunch (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. No delete !votes. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Cooke

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

Local legislator and judge (fails WP:POLITICIAN) and unsourced. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WP:POLITICIAN says that "members and former members of a ... provincial legislature" are notable. Steve Smith (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that part, good catch. Still is unsourced though. MBisanz ^talk 06:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on condition sources can be found (given the common name and Canadian origin, I'm not up to this task). He would easily passes WP:POLITICIAN as a state legislator. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while sourcing could be improved, they are out there for example this one but someone with access to local books and media is needed here. Valenciano (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, note: I asked to have this undeleted yesterday, but it was nominated here before I had a chance to add sources. I have added a few now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snow. Perhaps the nominator would be willing to withdraw it and speedily close. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, now that it's sourced. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In this debate the arguments for deletion appear very weak in comparison to the keeps, and as such, this is being closed as keep. (X! · talk) · @081 · 00:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiichiro Hurukawa

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

There are thousands of asteroids named for people and it is WP:SYN to say he is prolific by looking at one list of people. MBisanz ^talk 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this individual lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Italian version of this article has a more complete list of his accomplishments. It does not, however, provide any context for them, making it a bit thin even by stub standards. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the man has spent a large portion of his career advancing science and astronomy. That seems worthy of a short blurb in the hallowed halls of Wikipedia. Raymondwinn (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where are the sources that discuss his advancements? MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. The deletion rationale sets up false premises for the discussion. People are of course not notable for having an asteroid named for them, they have asteroids named for them as a recognition of achievements, contributions, etc, i.e. because they quite likely are notable within a society of sorts. The bold statement that there are "thousands of asteroids" named for people, needs a source, I think it is merely an empty statement supporting a weak rationale. Just found a list found List of minor planets named after people (there are less than 800) - Kiichiro is absolutely good company there. It was painstaking work to discover asteroids in the old days, before CCDs and image software, meticuoulsy examining photographic plates for the most minute faint stripes. The examples below clearly demonstrate that naming can be a special recognition by that (admittedly highly specialist) scientific society - it is also obvious that asteroids are not named after the discoverer (possbily different story with comets e.g. SL9). This implies that he is notable .
- (3220) Murayama = 1951 WF. Discovered 1951 Nov. 22 by M. Laugier at Nice. Named in honor of Sadao Murayama, observer of Mars, authority on meteorites, and director of the earth-science section of the National Science Museum, at Ueno Park, Tokyo.
- (3295) Murakami = 1950 DH. Discovered 1950 Feb. 17 by K. Reinmuth at Heidelberg. Named in memory of Tadayoshi Murakami (1907-1985), professor of astronomy at the Hiroshima University, president of the Hiroshima Jogakuin College. He studied meteors extensively and encouraged many meteor observers in Japan. He contributed much to the teaching and popularization of astronomy in Japan, not only by lecturing at universities, but also by writing many books and articles over a period of fifty years. His father, Harutaro Murakami, studied lunar theory and is known for his work ’Theory of the Perturbation of the Moon’.
- and now our fellow (3425) Hurukawa = 1929 BD. Discovered 1929 Jan. 29 by K. Reinmuth at Heidelberg. Named in honor of Kiichiro Hurukawa, astronomer at the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, known for his identifications and orbit computations and for his participation in the observational program of minor planets with the Kiso Schmidt. Source [74]

The fellow is Japanese, so we have the usual WP:BIAS issues and inevitable problems with transliterations of foreign names. Alternative spelling in kunrei-shiki is Kiitiro Hurukawa. Gbooks returns 7 hits for the first "Kiichiro Hurukawa", 20 for the second "Kiitiro Hurukawa", and I wounder if "Iichiro Hurukawa" would also be possible. No doubt, the best search parameter is 古川麒一郎, which returns 624 Gbooks hits, I have no idea of Gbook's coverage of Japanese texts, but it sure indicates notability to me. Sifting though a simple Gsearch for the name in Japanese identifies this ref [75] the Gtranslate version, under "science committee", the name is now Ichiro Furukawa (!!!) - and he is a professor in Tokyo. WP:PROF may therefore apply. Applying common sense however, would say that a Japanese fellow with an international profile as indicated by English Gbook hits is likely to be included in an encyclopedia there - and that we should allow WP:WikiProject Japan time to sort that out. Unfortunately the few people over there are busy, there is currently a frenzy sourcing BLPs by the hundreds, but I have posted a note. This little research took me more than a good hour, that's very likely 60-fold the time it took to nominate it.[76] We will probably see more AfD nominations of other asteroid discoveres, so to cut along story short I suggest to merge the information into List of discoveres of asteroids with a redirect - an option the nominee should have considered out of respect for WP:PRESERVE. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted and restored, if I had redirected it, that could have been seen as an attempt to make an end run around the deletion process by eliminating an article which at least one other person felt should be restored. MBisanz ^talk 15:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that this article was deleted and restored. 1) Are you referring to a renegade and out of process deletion orchestrared by user:Scott MacDonald et al. about 20 Jan 2010, not visible to non-admins? If so, why did you feel compelled to renominate for AfD after being sourced by user:DESiegel on the 22Jan 2010? 2) Which redirect target were you thinking of?, again I see no hint. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is visible to anyone here. I was thinking of 3425 Hurukawa as a good target. MBisanz ^talk 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to go AfD for a merge proposal. I assumed that your AfD nomination meant that you wanted the article deleted, but your rationale doesn't say so explicitly of course. I read it as a WP:N concern, and so did JBSupreme. A merge with no loss of information is merely window dressing, a technical and bureaucratic tweak, to have an entirely harmless BLP appear as a non-BLP, just to have the count down by one - to me it appears that the tail is wagging the dog. Articles are not deleted for being stubs, and I believe there is potential for an article like Karl Wilhelm Reinmuth, the Italian version of the article is moving in that direction, but we need an interested Japanese-speaking editor to penetrate the sources in that language. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that although one does not necessarily become notable for discovering one asteroid, one does for discovering a large numer, 49 in this case according to the itWP article--I added them. We do not have to use our own opinion, for him it is shown by having an asteroid named for him--an asteroid he did not discover, named for him by a very distinguished astronomer. I think that shows recognition by the profession, and meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @080 · 00:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Zappa

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual individual. Lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ENT ttonyb (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ghits and Gnews are not germane. I've provided several reliable sources, and the subject of the article satisfies WP:GNG. Some of the sources are not online, this does not negate them. Dead trees still exist. :-) Furthermore, the article has been improved (with improved sourcing) since the previous AFD. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am not sure why you would think GHit and GNEWS are not germane to the discussion. It is debatable this is substantial coverage of the subject of the article. The last two may be, but an article written at the time of her birth is probably not. ttonyb (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because a general numbers count doesn't matter when reliable sources have been provided to establish WP:N according to WP:GNG. The article written at the time of her birth is provided for WP:V of a certain factoid, not to establish notability. The article from the knitting magazine is a complete, 2 page interview with the subject and the one in Women's Wear Daily contains a good 4-5 paragraphs about her. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The nomination states, "GHits and GNEWS of substance," there is nothing that refers to the number of hits. Yes, it means I looked for substance not numbers. I did not say the WWD or the Knitting article lacked substance, only that, "It is debatable this is substantial coverage of the subject of the article." ttonyb (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my mistake. However, according to the GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Seems like at least 3 of the provided refs fulfill this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to be sufficiently referenced now. Her activities were noted also by other US media: LA Weekly, People, NY Times. The content is verifiable with reliable sources and the information could be useful for our readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think whatever issues existed at the time of the nomination have since been resolved, by the looks of the article at present. JBsupreme (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow/speedy keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), or withdrawing it, that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have no issues with that suggestion to keep. ttonyb (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @080 · 00:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change Management 101 Model

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

Contested prod. Unnotable business model, only reference is the book that introduced it. Written like an ad for said book. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable concept for which I can find no significant independent coverage. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this content-free article. No third-party coverage of this model, as far as I can tell. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. So confused and meaningless that nobody can reasonably be expected to make sense of it: This model illustrates three primary phases of Change Management project implementation: Plan, Do and Sustain. The model states that implementors Plan the change process, Do the work required to lead the organization through transition and Sustain new structures and behaviors to meet long-term business objectives. The Plan phase includes assessing needs and developing a plan. The Do phase includes launching communication and transitioning work. The Sustain phase includes aligning structures and optimizing results. So, what have we learned? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete I unfortunately have enough experience with the jargon to understand the article. By the standards of the field, though the article is very poorly written, it is not nonsense. But nonetheless it is not a notable business model or a notable book. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The improvements added to the article renders the previous delete opinions a little stale, and the comments after the improvements show that the article is now worthy of existing. (X! · talk) · @080 · 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOTFE

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}}.

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

I can't find significant coverage for this in Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability as the only open source program to provide disk encryption for PDAs, only one to provide driverless operation with FreeOTFE Explorer, first to provide cross platform support for encrypted Linux volumes, open source support for PKCS#11 security tokens, etc, etc. Nuwewsco (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nuwewsco. LotLE×talk 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is somehow notable, we need to show evidence of notability in the form of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. This is, as of right now, sorely lacking. JBsupreme (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A widespread program, longstanding page too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As other users have pointed out, it was the first open source system to introduce a lot of disk encryption functionality now found in other products (e.g. "portable mode"), and it's been around for a long time now. Some of it's functionality isn't even available with other systems (e.g. cross platform support for both Windows Mobile devices and Linux volumes). If this software wasn't notable, the page would have been deleted long ago F11f12f13 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) — F11f12f13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - This is the main way of accessing encrypted LUKS filesystems on Windows. Luks is linked in several other places in Wikipedia. Saying that FreeOTFE is not notable when it's the primary Win32 software package for this type of encrypted seems a bit weird. OK... it's not notable for *you* : that doesn't mean it's not notable. Also, I'm not sure that coverage in Google should be a barometer for what goes into Wikipedia - there are plenty of other search engines, and FYI Google does not cover every page on the internet, and search results may well be tailored to your previous searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlew (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) — Timlew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Do we have any coverage in reliable sources about this software? I appreciate that there's reason to believe that the software is notable, but the sources in the article are things like version histories and the like. One good article from a magazine would do it, quite honestly - if the software is that important, someone somewhere said so in a publication of some sort. Also, it's not worthwhile to compare this subject to others; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS describes why this isn't a good argument to make. We're talking about FreeOTFE, not any other software. If we can find sources that show why FreeOTFE is important, then we'll keep it. Otherwise, not. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've added additional references to the article. These include mentions in O'Reily books, Power Security Tools books, and various other consumer computer reference books. Some of those are more than simple mentions but have paragraphs describing the software. That's pretty remarkable for utility software. Here are some of those:

David A. Karp, Windows Vista annoyances, O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2008, ISBN 0596527624, page 5.
Michael Mandaville, Citizen-Soldier Handbook: 101 Ways Every American Can Fight Terrorism, Dog Ear Publishing, 2009 ISBN 1598586718, page 253.
Gregory B. White, Wm. Arthur Conklin, Dwayne Williams, Roger L. Davis, Chuck Cothren, CompTIA Security All-in-One Exam Guide, Second Edition, McGraw Hill Professional, 2008, ISBN 0071601279, page 103.
Bryan Burns, Jennifer Stisa Granick, Steve Manzuik, Paul Guersch, Dave Killion, Nicolas Beauchesne, Security power tools, O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2007, ISBN 0596009631, page 523.

Shadowjams (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to references above, IIRC it was also mentioned in PC World and Information Week magazines (and a few others). Definitely worth keeping. Cupids wings (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are only two major (free) disk encryption systems for windows: truecrypt and freeOTFE, and for Windows Mobile, it's the only open source disk encryption system (see [77]). Just because it's not marketed heavily, and so doesn't appear on google much doesn't make it less notable. XFireRaidX (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per latest additions by Shadowjams. There is also a CNET review, executed by the CNET staff, though this is a minority comparing to the ones discovered by Shadowjams Honeyman (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @079 · 00:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uni5: The World's Enemy

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

This is an unreleased album without either a confirmed tracklist or a confirmed release date. Three of the four references confirm that one "rumoured track" was recorded for the album, the fourth provides a vague "2010" release date. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- Alexf^(talk) 16:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- Alan - talk 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator withdraw (non-admin closure) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Bonner

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable BLP of the president of some border patrol union. Unit Anode 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOM -- I didn't see the previous AFD. -- Unit Anode 02:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @079 · 00:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny With A Chance:The Movie

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

Completely unsourced ... lots of rumors circulating, but no announcement. —Kww(talk) 02:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)*=[reply]
Delete without prejudice as premature. Anytime Disney thinks they can empty the wallets of tweens, the come up with another tween sitcom or tween movie or tween spinoff. So yeah... its likely to happen. But Wikipedia can certainly wait til it does, and certainly wait until it gets more than just rumour . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It'll happen...but not right now. Unsourced and if it was coming out this summer, it would've been filming at this point and the teen mags would have been covering it very deeply. Nate • (chatter) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Probably would have qualified as a speedy. Page creator has added a lot of OR to articles and is currently blocked for that. I don't think he's made a single non-reverted edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After reviewing the discussion, I find broad and reasonable disagreement on the tenability of the article. Issues such as significance of coverage and inherence of notability can prove subjective and difficult, as is reflected by this debate. Skomorokh 04:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Portugal relations

AfDs for this article:

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

arguments for keep last time didn't back up with comprehensive third party coverage. neither country has a resident ambassador. article largely hinges on 3 sources and Calouste Gulbenkian who has its own article. it appears most of their relations are on the football field [78]. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the countries plainly have significant relations and the better way forward is to continue the sourcing and development of the page. TerriersFan (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

really? what do you define as significant? I can't find evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Im content with the references for now, although I might look for a few more to add in later. Not every relationship has to be amazing, and gigantic indeed this relationship is subtle but it is still an important part of worldwide foreign policy (Of course that is just my opinion). Plus it is a nice almanac article which is part of WP:5P. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere is an issues with source here. I thinik a few more mainstream third parties would be usefull.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as absurd as last time. As pointed out already, Calouste Gulbenkian and two institutions related to him already have articles. Moreover, during Gulbenkian's stay in Lisbon (1942-55), there was no Armenian state (that would only come in 1991), so ipso facto he could have had nothing to do with "Armenia-Portugal relations". (And even if there had been an Armenia back then, since when do wealthy expatriates count as "relations"? Would we mention Mohamed Al-Fayed at Egypt–United Kingdom relations, or do we mention Abdul Razzak Yaqoob at Pakistan – United Arab Emirates relations?) And no, neither the fact that a few Portuguese politicians visited Armenia for a couple of days in 2001, eliciting supportive remarks from Armenian leaders, nor the fact that the Armenian ambassador once held a conversation with a Portuguese legislator, in any way validate this topic. These are items of news, and rather trivial ones at that, which we would never normally pick up outside this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Armenia and Portugal have articles too, does that mean they can't be mentioned in other articles? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at it from the opposite angle, too. For example, our article on Bill Clinton mentions that he plays the saxophone, and there's no shortage of news articles that also mention this. Should we start Bill Clinton's saxophone skills? Yilloslime ^T_C 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reduction to absurdity is fun to write and fun to read, but doesn't add anything useful to the debate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you keep making such arguments? I mean really, what is your comment about not mentioning Armenia and Portugal in other articles if it's not reductio ad absurdum? My point with the above comment is that some topics are best covered in stand alone articles, and others--even when notable enough for their own articles--are best covered in parent articles. The locations of diplomatic missions of Armenia and Portugal are best covered in Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Portugal, respectively, and Calouste Gulbenkian is best discussed in Calouste Gulbenkian. There's no valued added by synthesizing these disparate factoids into article supposedly about the relations between Armenia and Portugal. Yilloslime ^T_C 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL to use a reductio ad absurdum and then hypocritically complain about someone else using one, whilst at the same time declaring they're "fun to write and fun to read, but [don't] add anything useful to the debate" - is the most colossal case of shooting oneself in the foot I've ever seen! Ryan4314 (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The countries plainly do not have significant relations. As there are no reliable third party sources that discuss this topic any sort of depth or detail, we should not have an article about it. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I were to rank all the permutations of relations this wouldn't rank on top, but the references seem fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bilateral relationship doesn't appear to extend beyond the occasional exchange of the usual compliments given to visiting delegations and the references don't cover the bilateral relationship in any depth. Moreover, the 'history' section is about a single individual's business and charity interests, not the relationship between the countries. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. Two independent countries that are represented diplomatically. Not relevant that there are no embassies.sulmues Talk--Sulmues 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Two independent countries that are represented diplomatically" is not a criterion for these articles. WP:N is. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's reliable and verifiable sources support the claim of notability. Lack of resident ambassadors is not a valid criteria for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of resident ambassadors is not a criterion but certainly it would give an indication how each country views the other. If there is a lot of trade, investment, tourism and migration, these are usually triggers for opening an embassy. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced article on notable subject. Nominator's reasons are not convincing. Per WP:ATD, its always better to improve an article, than nominate it for deletion because someone else has not done so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to look for sources that would bring this past WP:N but there was insufficient reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to improvements since first nomination, i.e. editors are actively working to improve and have an interest in this subject. I do not see a reason to stop them while their efforts are still under way. One other book to consider is The Armenians in history and the Armenian question (Documentary Publications, 1988), which discusses how "Although there are very few Armenians residing in Portugal (less than 200 in 1973), yet the fact that the renowned Gulbenkian Foundation is based ..." Anyway, I found and added a source that discusses when Portugal recognized Armenia's independence. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per A Nobody, MichaelQSchmidt, Alansohn, and RAN ( -1958). The article passes WP:N by having sufficient number of 3rd party independent references. I will also reiterate a point I made at a previous Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Kosovo relations (2nd nomination), that all of these relations articles should either be deleted, or all should be kept. According to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette: "If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. However, group nominations that are too large or too loosely related may be split up or speedy-closed." It was argued that this issue was previously argued and so I shouldn't make it, but no one provided me with a cite to a previous discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cdog, you don't seem to fully understand what WP:N says. Yes, the sources need to be 3rd independent. And yes, they need to be reliable. And, yes, the sources you've used to build this article are indeed both of those. But WP:N also says that the sources need to address the subject directly in detail, and none of the cited sources come close to that. Two of the sources are about a dead Armenian millionaire and make absolutely no mention of these countries' relations with each other. New Armenia just mentions, in passing, the date that P recognized A; it does not provide direct, detailed coverage. The newspaper article about the Armenian terrorist attacks similarly lacks any mention of the relations between these countries. I could go on, but you get the point. My promise to you: Show one reliable, 3rd party source that actually discusses these countries relations directly and in some detail, and I'll switch my !vote to neutral. Find me two, and I'll switch it to keep. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently contains the following links that address the subject matter directly in my opinion, in that they refer either to high level talks between the governments of the two countries, or to high level officials commenting on the state of relations:[79], [80] [81] [82]. The absence of these sources at the time this article was nominated for deletion demonstrate the lack of research done to find such sources before nominating this article for deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you indulging my request, but unfortunately none of these articles directly address the topic of A-P relations in any detail. The first three are little news blurbs, none of which exceeds 150 words--hardly "detailed" coverage of the events they discusses, let alone the topic A-P relations. The last one is a little better, but at 321 words, it too hardly constitutes detailed coverage of the meeting it's about, let alone of the uber-topic of A-P relations. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have not changed your vote. That is quite disappointing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep already well exceeds the usual inclusion standard, WP:N. No argument presented for why this article merits the unusual and irregular treatment proposed by LibStar. Wily D 17:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

read my original nomination, the article only had 3 sources and there did not appear to be significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply showing sources covering non-notable, routine functions of governments doesn't add up to notability to me. The lack of mutual embassies makes their relationship appear even less notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can disagree with each other regard what we personally think is "notable". The presence of sources however does tend to indicate notability under wikipedia's definition.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability≠Notability Yilloslime ^T_C 03:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability through multiple sources as we have here sure does. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is trivial, relationship is non-existent. No encyclopedic treatment is possible due to the weakness and paucity of the sources. Abductive (reasoning) 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article contains one nugget of notable information, which would be better presented on the Foreign relations of Armenia and Foreign relations of Portugal articles. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- <snip>long off topic bickering between editors moved to talk page </snip> Yilloslime ^T_C 17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and the absence of any evidence found over a fairly substantial bit of time to show that there is a meaningful bilateral relationship here. There isn't.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is meaningful enough of a relationship to justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article, per above.Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am now inclined to support delete. There seems to be no significance to this relashionship. They do not appear to have an alliance, nor a significant trading partnersip. In fact they only seem to maintain limited (they do not even appear to have embasys in each others countries) diplomatic ties.Slatersteven (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above and beyond the inherent notability of such articles, the notability of this article is established by the ample reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent notability? They get deleted all the time. Abductive (reasoning) 00:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems like an almost identical standard text argument was used here and here. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you nominated all of them for deletion, maybe we should just disregard your nominations too. No. Obviously not. The argument that these articles are inherently encyclopedic is a valid point that's been raised before and deserves to be considered here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and I've used different text and different gnews searches for each. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Victory (DJ Khaled album). (X! · talk) · @078 · 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I Do Is Win

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

A single supposedly from an unreleased album that lacks reliable sources to establish its notability. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NSONG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victory (DJ Khaled album). I'm seeing numerous sites linking to downloads and/or showing lyrics, but at this time there does not appear to be any significant coverage for this song in independent reliable sources. This press release states that the single will be released after this Sunday's Super Bowl, so perhaps soon we will have more coverage or the song will chart, etc. For now, though, it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan - talk 16:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As mentioned Gongshow, song currently lacks notability. If the song receives a form of coverage, the article can be modified to mention them. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amritha Nagar

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

Non-notable populated place. No reliable references provided, or available, of notability. It exists, surely, but is not notable. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable residence, no reliable sources indicating notability of this place. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All settlements are notable. Sources almost certainly exist, even if they can't easily be found online. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Amritha Nagar suburb or city district? I can't say, according to the article it is a residence colony in the Thiruvananthapuram. Should I create an article about a block of houses where I live? It is a beautiful part of a city district and there is even a high school nearby. It is possible to call it a residence colony, but my place is surely not notable for this project. The question remains: Is Amritha Nagar suburb? The sources don't say much. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As much as my personal knowledge goes (which is, I must say, original research), it is only a block of a handful of colonies. That's why this should be a delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is most likely to be a neighbourhood. Question is how big?. "Nagar" translates to city in Hindi/Tamil/Malayalam. Most of the residential developments start out as just development projects of few houses/promoted city blocks and eventually grow into suburbs by absorbing the nearby neighbourhoods. Wikimapia indicates an area of about 250 m X 250 m which includes the school and the math building. Is it enough to get an article of its own?--Sodabottle (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

200x200 sq mtrs is not enough if the place does not have a historical context or a geographical context (e.g. a major culmination point for a national highway). But for a colony, no, it is not notable. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –SpacemanSpiff 02:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there any way to tell whether this is (1) a municipality or other political entity, (2) the common name for a certain neighborhood, (3) a housing development, (4) a planned resort, or (5) something else? I have no idea what "colony" means in this context. If it's (1) or (2), I would vote to keep; if it's (3) or (4), or if we really can't tell, then to delete. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this blog is a guide, the place is some sort of housing development which means it is akin to a neighborhood. We do have articles on neighborhoods so I'd lean toward a weak keep (if I were not agnostic on keeping or deleting the article!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do believe it is the original contributor's work to provide reliable sources for us to acknowledge the size of the area. If none of us editors have been able to find even one reliable source after so many days of this AfD getting listed, and if the original contributor has not improved the article till now, should we be keeping an article on a housing development/colony/neighbourhood that has no evidence that it is large enough to be included? Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 17:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small residential colony with no special claims to be notable. Salih (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no evidence available that this is a large enough neighborhood to fall under WP:AFDP. In the absence of any such verifiability from reliable sources this has to go. —SpacemanSpiff 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @078 · 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Is Closed Today

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

I just PRODded this, but then noticed a previous prod had been contested. My remarks were: Does not meet the inclusion standard WP:NFILMS; not presently a notable film. (See, e.g., the 17 Google hits.) Glenfarclas (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; insufficient sources to establish notability. Evil saltine (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page: "This is an upcoming film being produced by a reputable film company. The film has been entered into numerous festivals and is in fact notable. Ak2036 (talk)"

Delete at this time. The film is "upcoming" which means there can be no current indications of notability. the fact that the talk page says it's being produced by a reputable company does not mean that the film is currently notable. Nor being entered in festivals confer notability. If the film was to win an award at one of these then it's possible that it may become notable. something lame from CBW 02:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now). If the film receives significant coverage in the future, the article can always be restored. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is gone in seven days. JBsupreme (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as being premature. Wkipedia can wait until this thing perhaps gets some press. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @077 · 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold in piecewise regression analysis

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ligong Chen, this is part of a massive walled garden of articles concerning non-notable academic Ligong Chen's idiosyncratic take on statistics. Perhaps there is the possibility of a worthy article with something resembling the present title, but the present article itself is of no use in reaching that state. It was prodded, but the prod was removed; I'd include the other articles listed at the Chen AfD as part of this AfD, but there's still a possibility that the prod might work for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further evidence of notability is provided. I'm not quite sure what the rules for notability in mathematics articles are, but I doubt this meets them. Robofish (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. (Edit: Skbkekas said it better.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient notability, and due to lack of evidence that the material discussed in the article is accepted as being meaningful by anyone other than the article's author. Skbkekas (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is in a primitive state, and I won't expect to see a change in the near future. BUT, the subject is (From my understanding of statistics) of relevance. If it was excepted as part of an academic journal, I would suspect it is meaningful beyond the authors opinion. And lastly, I am sad to see how this discussion started with a deletion and not in the discussion page where I didn't see anyone writing anything but me... Talgalili (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I undid your re-organization that grouped comments by whether they were deletes or keeps and counted them: AfDs are not settled by vote-counting, so the numbering is a step in the wrong direction — see WP:AFDEQ. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Thanks David - it is good to know. Talgalili (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There may be something more to be said, but it would be better placed in piecewise regression analysis than having a separate article. At present neither succeeds in communicating anything meaningful, let alone useful. Also, the publications cited are conference proceedings I think, but these might be referried. Melcombe (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment After second reviewing - I agree with your point. I changes my vote to delete - but would like to encourage the writer to try and add his insights into the piecewise regression analysis article. Talgalili (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and an unnecessary fork from piecewise regression analysis. Melcombe (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever else this is, it lacks sufficient context to even begin to evaluate whether there's a concept worthy of an article here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @077 · 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bikes Not Bombs

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

Non-notable organization. Woogee (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom.--_LittleGordon 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]

Keep article needs a lot of improvement but plenty of sources exist [83]. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete I can see the sources Libstar, but does "Bikes Not Bombs" hold much encyclopedic value?--Prodigy96 (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]

Comment: I added four sources. #s 1, 2, and 4 all focus exclusively on the organization. #3 corroborates information. The Mother Jones article especially looks like it could be mined for quite a bit of information. The first two sources might be on the small side for notability -- not familiar with them. The article definitely needs more work, but I'm leaning toward keep based on 25 minutes' searching for and adding sourcing. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I mean to say the publications for sources 1 and 2 might be on the small side. I don't know anything about Dollars & Sense or Bicycle Retailer & Industry News to be sure they're qualify as reliable sources. Their inclusion in the databases led me to assume they'd pass muster. The articles themselves are fine. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on the Google news search up top of the AFD. Read the summaries of various articles that appear. Is that not notable? Dream Focus 05:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think their politics are off and I see most of the sources are ones that would normally be sympathetic to their POV, but it meets the criteria for notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @077 · 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leader Of 3

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

Insufficient independent and reliable sources to establish notability. Evil saltine (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a hypothetical article about a future show. His IMDb profile shows zero credits (I see Steve Will was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Will), and I can find no significant information about this show. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. Woogee (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a local thing; that's why it's so hard to find information about it. The "TWTV" they speak of seems to exist: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/twtv.com Evil saltine (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it's a cable "station", shown on one (or possibly two) calbe networks. Clearly non-notable. Woogee (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable/hypothetical. JBsupreme (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice unti such time, if ever, that this 16-year-old's show ever gets some coverage outside his own websites and blogs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - spam for kid's project. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as above. Freikorp (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaheh Koulaei

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

Simply being a candidate is not sufficient and she is not actually a professor at the university per [84], therefore I believe she fails the notability criteria. MBisanz ^talk 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added a reference on top of two that the article already had. Also, about 8 other articles in Wikipedia link to hers. On Matt's link, I found "Koolaee, Elahe, Associate Professor of InternationalRelations, University of Tarbiat Modarres, Iran." From my knowledge of Arabic, "Elahe Koolaee" is a plausible transliteration consistent with "Elaheh Koulaei", so it's probably the same woman. Chutznik (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current article lists her as a member of the Iranian parliament, sourced to the NYT. Clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 08:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 08:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 08:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tímea Dragony

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

She's a composer, but it does not appear she has done anything uniquely noteworthy in her field, she has not won any awards or been appointed to individual posts, chairs, etc. The sources are a translated list from Amazon.com, an article that looks self-generated since it includes her personal email, and another article that talks about a different person saying they were inspired by her music. I'm just not seeing notability here. MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the article based on a request made via Articles for Creation. A stronger case for notability could probably be made at hu.wikipedia.org than here. She is mentioned in a few articles, but does not have one of her own. It would seem a shame to just toss away the verifiable information compiled here without at least trying to move it to a better site. Any Magyar speakers out there? --Dystopos (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I got nothing on any of the Gnews, Gscholar, Gbooks searches. Ray^Talk 08:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @077 · 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Fisher

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The article appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

This article appears to succeed in all the above areas. It seems that this article must be considered notable. There has been significant press coverage of Fisher in the Anchorage area (Radio, television, newspaper) and all over Alaska. 74.114.84.100 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 74.114.84.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – The coverage is hardly significant. Additionally, please see WP:RS for a further discussion on reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Ttonyb1 Why isn't coverage across Alaska significant? Alaska is a huge landmass, and I would have thought if it was covered State-wide it would be classed as significant. County-wide I could understand as non-significant, but not state-wide. If I've mis-understood what you meant, could you please clarify? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure and thanks for asking. The coverage could be in Alaska or New York, it does not matter. What does matter is the coverage in the article has to be significant. A short article, an article that is just announcing his running, or about another that just mentions him is not significant coverage. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears to come down to whether or not the coverage is significant, correct?

This source [85] seems to obviously be significant. It is more than a trivial mention (substantial coverage in fact), addresses the subject in detail, and no additional research is needed to extract the content. The ADN is the only newspaper in Anchorage (280,000 residents) and is definitely reliable. This source has been published in the other major Alaskan cities as well, Fairbanks and Juneau. [86] [87]

Now as the number of sources vary depending on the depth of coverage (and there are only two sentences currently in the article) it would seem to me that there is no necessity for a large amount of sources. However, to back up the other article, there is other coverage as well. KTUU, a telelvision station, aired this [88] smaller, but not trivial, and the Alaska Dispatch has this [89]. My challenger also said that the subject lacked GNews hits of substance. I would beg to disagree [90]. The point I'm trying to make is that because there is a significant source about the subject and other sources back up this source, the coverage can be classified as significant. I'm new to all these Wikipedian rules but I see no reason why this article should be deleted. It would seem to be injustice when an article like this [91] with no sources is permitted. IFeelLikeIAmGoingToThrowUp (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As I predicted some time ago, it is now becoming the case that we are able to find substantial newspaper coverage of not just every major party candidate for a national or state office, but of many of the primary candidates. If we follow the GNG, they are notable. Since at worst some such people at least will happen to be notable, I do not see how we could exclude the possibility of using the GNG as at least an auxiliary justification. I am not sure I really like the result, but I don;t see what else to do.` DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At this point, he seems to meet the basic criteria of WP:BIO. At the risk of having people shoot me down per WP:CRYSTAL, I would also suggest that it stands to reason that his notability per BIO will only increase in the weeks and months leading up to the primary. This is for a seat in the United States House of Representatives, not some local council election. Also, while this is only a primary, the winner is all but guaranteed to win the general election, the Dems have approximately a snowball's chance in hell of winning Alaska's House seat. Wine Guy Talk 11:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas O'Loughlin

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thomas O'Loughlin

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

Doesn't appear to be the subject of multiple reliable, third party sources, though some of his books could be borderline notable so I'm unsure on this. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reluctantly. I sourced the basics of what's in the article, and removed the rest of it. Despite no article about this individual, he's written and published sufficient material to pass my personal threshold. Chutznik (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep per WP:PROF: full professor at a major university, associate at research think tank, published more than the average professor, lots of Google scholar hits, and has lots of books at WorldCat. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Bearian, clearly passes the professor test. Wine Guy Talk 07:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obvious single-purpose accounts ignored; article fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NOTABILITY per consensus in the discussion. NW (Talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Will

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

Non-notable actor. His most illustrious acting job is a 10-minute short film. Also some YouTube clips. The various web sites advertising him are on the same IP subnet — smells an awful lot like a make-myself-famous-using-the-Internet guy. Weregerbil (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree - SMP Studios seems to be his own outfit, at least he is described as their "main actor" and features prominently on their website. I don't see the independent comment required for notability; certainly doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to solidly fail WP:ENTERTAINER. To say nothing of the self-promotion issues. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Steve will is not an actor the youtube, nor on website. those are just refrence points, created by fans and the smp company its self. Steve Will has worked on JC Penney modeling and many TV related jobs. which has a signifigance to the Public. Hey the Refrences tell the truth. Im a Steve Will fan Myself. i have many of His magazines.(talk) 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MovieCrazydude (talk • contribs) — MovieCrazydude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I Agree, Keep this. Steve Will is awesome, his last Modeling shot was Hot. Steve Will is a real Model and actor. hes right the Refrences are proof. steve does meet.(talk) 23:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123michaelj223 (talk • contribs) — 123michaelj223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. Keep this. Steve Will is awesome, his last Modeling shot was Hot. Steve Will is a real Model and actor. hes right the Refrences are proof. steve does meet.(talk) 23:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 321boomiwon44 (talk • contribs) — 321boomiwon44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - the three obvious sock/SPA !votes above were deleted as vandalism; I have restored them as I think all !votes should be visible. The closing admin will know how to value them. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing is asserted in the article that is actually notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep this. Steve Will is a great actor, i scene him on tv last night and he was advertising this search engine. Steve will rocks! (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhlava2847566 (talk • contribs) — Hhlava2847566 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Fails to meet notabilty guidelines. Considering the number of SPAs, suggest Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Edward321. Tim Song (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETED. JBsupreme (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Will

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

Autobiography that lacks notability. He has a page at IMDB but has zero credits listed. Other sources are all promotion. Eeekster (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @076 · 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasen Walker

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

This was listed under CSD as spam. However, while it currently reads like an ad, I think that he has enough publications under his belt that we should at least consider it here. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we'd need independent sources to show notability, per criterion #1 from WP:ACADEMIC. Evil saltine (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (although an Afd shouldn't normally be started when an underconstruction tag is displayed), because third-party coverage from reliable sources is an absolute necessity.--_LittleGordon 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (banned user)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spammy, fails WP:RS. andy (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam? Well it definitely lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, thats for sure. JBsupreme (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lead reads a little bit in the WP:ADVERT direction and could use cleanup. However, the publication lists is quite strong, and pushed it to meet WP:AUTH and WP:GNG. LotLE×talk 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? The publication list is long, but since they're all written by the subject of the article they can't exactly be counted as strong as far as reliable evidence is concerned. In fact there isn't a single independent, third party reference in the article. Not one. andy (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, five items in Google Scholar, citation count 15, 7, 1, 0, 0. Abductive (reasoning) 11:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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